Oral Answers to Questions

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Social Exclusion (Rural Areas)

Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on reducing social exclusion in rural areas.

Phil Hope: Delivery of the socially excluded adults public service agreement and the families at risk review will reduce social exclusion in rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is fully engaged in working to reduce social exclusion in rural areas, as is reflected in his strategy for strong rural communities.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister not realise that the programme of rural post office closures that his Government are completing will at one swift move destroy any prospect of reducing social exclusion in rural areas, particularly as they are removing any possibility of profitable post offices remaining in shops, and even disallowing shops that have operated a post office from offering any services that might compete with the Post Office? Will his Government reduce this programme of closures?

Phil Hope: We recognise that post offices play an important social and economic role in rural areas, but, as the hon. Lady knows, the post office network is costing the taxpayer about £3.5 million a week, which amounts to half a million pounds a day, and the cost per transaction in some of the 800 smaller post offices in rural areas is £17. That is simply unaffordable. We will, however, maintain a subsidy of £150 million a year to maintain a national network of post offices in rural areas, and we will apply minimum access criteria so that 95 per cent. of the population in rural areas will have access to a post office within three miles. I would be interested to hear whether the hon. Lady or any other Conservative Members, including those on the Front Bench, will match our commitment to spend £150 million—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Geraldine Smith: Does the Minister agree that it can be particularly bad to be poor in a rural area, as housing can be more expensive, transport links can be a problem—public transport is almost non-existent in some areas—and people can feel very isolated? We must recognise that, because if people are poor, they are poor, regardless of whether they live in a rural area or in the middle of a council estate.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we have a programme to tackle social exclusion in rural areas precisely because poor people in such areas require that. That is also why we give a massive subsidy of £55 million to local authorities for rural transport, in order to provide bus services for people in rural areas. That is why we have pledged to build more affordable homes—some 10,500 more homes in rural areas by 2011. That is why we fund third sector organisations—not least community transport schemes—to provide help and support to people in most need in rural areas. I am pleased to be able to say that two of our family nurse partnership programmes—which are programmes to help poorer families—will be piloted in rural areas, to ensure that those from rural families will, like everybody else, have the successful start to life that they deserve.

Oliver Heald: The Minister will be aware that according to Save the Children 1.3 million children in our country live in severe poverty, and yet the take-up of benefits by families entitled to them is poor. One of the most effective ways of getting across the message of take-up campaigns is to use post offices; indeed, in rural areas they are the only institution of that kind. Why is the Minister closing post offices?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about access and take-up of benefits, which is why I am very pleased that since 1997 we have lifted some 600,000 children out of poverty, and in the Budget—which we have debated and which the Opposition voted against last night—we made pledges to lift another 250,000 children and young people out of poverty. If the hon. Gentleman were to vote in accordance with the questions he asks—in other words, if he were to support lifting children out of poverty—we might have a little more respect for some of his opinions.

David Taylor: Earlier comments have rightly focused on families and children, but we should address older people as well, especially in England. Older people are disproportionately represented in the rural population—the average age in rural areas is 50, and in urban and city areas it is 42—and they are particularly prone to poverty, deprivation and exclusion, and are less likely to take up the benefits to which they are entitled. Will the Minister use his cross-cutting powers with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments to raise awareness of benefits among older people in rural areas, who might not have access to relevant information, so that he and his Government tackle the poverty that many such older people are having to endure?

Phil Hope: We will happily take forward the challenge that my hon. Friend has given to me. He will be pleased to learn that only last week I spoke at a conference in Leicester that examined the valuable role that older people play in communities. He will know that we have published a public service agreement called "Later Life", which spells out a range of new targets and new actions, be they about older people playing their part in communities, dealing with social exclusion and poverty, or providing better health services, safer neighbourhoods and independent living. Many older people want the ability to make a positive contribution to their community. The new free local bus travel anywhere in the country will certainly benefit many older people, as will the increased winter fuel payment of £50 and of more than £100 for older people. Such measures will directly address some of my hon. Friend's key questions about tackling pensioner poverty.

Robert Key: I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions about tackling social exclusion in rural areas, but the common thread running through all this, whether we are talking about crime, schools, the delivery of medical services, sport, entertainment or leisure, is transport, which is not working in rural areas. Will he please get a cross-government initiative going to tackle the issue? It is no good giving free bus passes to pensioners if there are no buses, and it is no good providing free school transport if children cannot get back to enjoy the rest of the benefits of the community in which they live.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we must do more to ensure that proper services are provided in villages and rural areas. I represent some 60 villages in my constituency and I work closely with them on integrating services, supporting village halls and providing rural transport. He is right to say that we must provide access to services, not only for older people through the use of free bus passes, but for children and young people. That is why we have a presumption against school closures in rural areas and why we are building more affordable homes. I know that some Conservative Members are opposed to home building, but such homes are vital for young people who want to have a house in their own village rather than leave it. That is why we support organisations such as Action with Communities in Rural England—ACRE—which is a strategic partner of the Cabinet Office in developing new policies and strategies to ensure that we address the specific issues of social exclusion and creating strong rural communities.

Third Sector Organisations

Jamie Reed: What assessment he has made of the potential role of third sector organisations in providing public services.

Edward Miliband: Third sector organisations have the potential to play an important role in the design, development and delivery of public services. That is reflected in our recent reforms in offender management, employment policy and health and social care. However, the third sector should never be an excuse for cutting Government funding to public services.

Jamie Reed: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and am reassured by his belief that the third sector should not be used as an excuse for cutting services. What further help can the Government give third sector organisations operating in my constituency, such as the West Cumbria Society for the Blind, the Hospice at Home West Cumbria, NCH and others, to ensure that local authorities and bodies such as primary care trusts give them the help and resources that they need to undertake their work?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the relationship between local authorities and third sector organisations on the ground, because it often defines whether or not those organisations succeed. I pay tribute to the organisations in his constituency that he mentions. We have made progress, in the sense that one of our targets for local government will measure the relationship between the local authorities and local third sector organisations, which will help to address a relevant issue in many areas—how local authorities treat the third sector and whether they help such organisations to grow and thrive.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that a number of local charities throughout England and Wales have recently become involved in the running of local post offices? They have found that where post office staff are not available to do that job, they can provide a service for perhaps two or three days a week. What steps is he taking to intervene with the Department for Work and Pensions, which created this crisis in the first place by reducing local post offices' footfall?

Edward Miliband: As my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), said, we are providing a subsidy of £150 million a year to local post offices. I have heard no proposals from the Conservative party as to how it would provide more money; all we hear, as we hear about every issue, is that we should have a moratorium on closures, but the Conservatives offer no real solutions. We are ensuring that we have not only a thriving post office network, but a sustainable one.

Bill Olner: Surely the Minister recognises—in fact, I know that he does—the third sector's value to many of our constituencies, in particular my own, which contains the Mary Ann Evans hospice and other valuable charities. Does he understand that in the current world climate of financial slow-down, all those charities will be severely challenged in raising the money that they need to keep those good services going? Will the Government give a commitment to examine carefully the core funding they provide? Perhaps the Government will be able to increase it at this difficult time.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point: at a time of financial pressures, third sector organisations in particular can feel the pinch. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made announcements in his Budget statement last week that will help charities to the tune of £300 million—that is money that they thought they were going to lose as a result of changes to income tax, but which they will get through gift aid. That will make a difference to them.
	My hon. Friend also emphasises the need to fund small local organisations properly. That is why the new grassroots grants programme, which has been pioneered by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, will help local organisations with those small sums that can make a big difference to the kind of services that they can provide to the community.

Post Office Closures

Mark Lancaster: What assessment the Social Exclusion Task Force has made of the likely effect of post office closures on social inclusion.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What assessment the Social Exclusion Task Force has made of the effect of post office closures on social inclusion.

Phil Hope: The Government recognise the social and economic role of post offices in local communities. Our subsidy to the Post Office of £150 million per year until 2011 will help to maintain a national network with national coverage, ensuring that all areas, including rural and deprived urban areas, will continue to have reasonable access to post office services.

Mark Lancaster: I am pleased that the Minister recognises the contribution that post offices make in both rural and urban communities—I have both in my constituency. But does he understand the anger felt by residents of Little Brickhill when they discovered, through an inadvertent leak on the Post Office website, that their post office was to close some nine months before the consultation was due to start? Does that not expose what a complete sham the consultation is?

Phil Hope: It is not appropriate for me to comment on any individual post office. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the present subsidy of £3.5 million a week is unaffordable. He is making representations on behalf of his constituents, but I would like to know why, between 1979 and 1997 when his party was in power, 3,500 post offices closed and not one penny of subsidy was given to post offices.

David Heathcoat-Amory: In the Government White Paper, "Rural Affairs", the then Deputy Prime Minister said that
	"we will...retain and renew the rural Post Office network and make banking, internet, pensions, benefits, prescriptions, health and other services available from rural post offices".
	Is it not the job of the Minister's Department to make the Government keep the promises in their White Paper and develop and sustain those post offices, instead of shutting them down?

Phil Hope: That is precisely the reason why we are giving a subsidy to the network of £150 million a year until 2011. I notice that the Opposition have significantly failed to make a commitment to match that subsidy. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a serious point about this, I would like to hear from his Front Benchers whether his party supports that level of subsidy.

Ronnie Campbell: Could the Minister find out what is happening in my constituency? The post office in Blyth has to move out of the Co-op, because it is closing, and no one seems to know what will happen to the post office. We wonder whether it is part of the closure programme that we do not know about.

Phil Hope: I cannot comment on individual cases, but the national criteria mean that 99 per cent. of the population in the top 15 per cent. most deprived areas will be within one mile of a post office. On a case by case basis, the Post Office has to take into account local geography, the availability of local transport and other socio-economic factors when making a decision about a particular post office. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to take back those criteria to his local post office for the negotiations.

Derek Wyatt: I had a rural post office close in Rodmersham, so I wonder whether I could persuade my hon. Friend to speak to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about merging the rural library service with a rural post office service, so the rural hamlets and villages in my constituency could have such a service at least once a week.

Phil Hope: Innovative proposals of that kind can be discussed and negotiated locally. I would encourage the Post Office to engage with local authorities and other third sector organisations that may wish to step in and fund or support particular branches or introduce innovative approaches to delivering services. However, in doing so, the Post Office will need to consider all the costs, not only at branch level, but the support it gives to post offices. I would encourage every local partner to get involved in such innovative proposals and see whether they can find a way forward.

Susan Kramer: When the Post Office and the Government announced the most recent round of closures, there was also a commitment to reopen a limited number of post offices, especially in areas of social exclusion that were underserved because of prior closures. I now understand from conversations with the Post Office that that will not apply in any urban areas, including areas such as Ham ward in my constituency, which is most deprived and does not have a single post office. Will the Minister please take up that issue with his colleagues?

Phil Hope: I am sure that the hon. Lady can champion her own constituency perfectly well. The criterion being used nationally for urban areas is that 99 per cent. of the population should be within one mile of a post office in the top 15 per cent. most deprived urban areas. That is an important commitment. At the beginning, that commitment applied to only the bottom 10 per cent. of deprived urban areas, but we have increased it to 15 per cent. My difficulty in responding to the hon. Lady stems from the fact that the Liberal Democrats appear to be saying that they will fund every post office no matter what the cost. Frankly, that is fairyland economics.

Francis Maude: Is it not now clear that the crucial access criteria for the closure of post offices will leave thousands of elderly and vulnerable people isolated from the services on which they depend, with walking routes that are dangerous to the alternatives and no public transport available? Were Ministers in the Cabinet Office consulted on the social exclusion implications of those access criteria? If they were not, what is the point of their having responsibility for social exclusion? If they were consulted, why did they make such a Horlicks of it?

Phil Hope: Once again the right hon. Gentleman lays down a challenge about the extent to which older people are being included in the discussions, but I notice that once again he has signally failed to match our commitment to provide the exact subsidy that he seeks, which will enable the post offices to remain open. I will give him more time at the Dispatch Box to answer my question: will he match our £150 million a year subsidy to support the rural and urban network?

Francis Maude: It would be great to get an answer to the question that I asked and I am sorry that the Minister has failed to do that. It is perfectly clear that the total incompetence of this process is leading to hundreds of completely viable post offices facing closure, creating huge problems for thousands of vulnerable people. What does the Minister think that his constituents in Corby will make of his fulminating in his local paper against post office closures in his constituency when those closures are being forced through by his Government? Will they not conclude that the Government are now shot through with hypocrisy?

Phil Hope: My Corby constituents hold me in extremely high regard. They like the fact that I stand up and campaign on their behalf. The fact that we now have a new town centre, a new railway station, two new secondary schools, a new hospital, brand new housing and a regenerated growth economy with low unemployment and higher wages might give some indication that the people of Corby are very pleased with the conduct and performance of their local Member of Parliament. They will not be persuaded by a sham campaign by the Conservative party, which is pretending to support post office openings at the same time as failing to commit to match the Government's pledge of a £150 million subsidy until the year 2011.

Gregory Campbell: Many people across the UK and in Northern Ireland are alarmed at what appears to be a sustained campaign for the demise of the post office network, particularly in rural areas. When will the Government go back to the drawing board and invest in a campaign to sustain and rebuild the rural post office network?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right to press for a subsidy for the post office network to maintain those post offices that are not financially viable. I am pleased that he will support the £150 million a year in subsidy that we are giving to the Post Office until the year 2011. I assume that he will support that, and I hope that he will persuade some of the other parties in this Chamber to support that £150 million subsidy, too.

Sports (Volunteering)

Andy Reed: What steps he is taking to reduce the administrative burden of volunteering in sport.

Edward Miliband: The Government are committed to reducing administrative burdens that may hinder any type of volunteering. Following the report of the independent Commission on the Future of Volunteering, we will produce guidance to help us reduce unnecessary Criminal Records Bureau checks, including in sport. Sport England is also running specific programmes to reduce the administrative burden on sports volunteering.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to congratulate the 5 million people who volunteer in sport on a monthly basis, including Nina Walker, from my constituency, who recently won the BBC unsung sporting heroes award. However, will he ensure that his Department plays a lead role in ensuring that the unintended consequences of worthwhile legislation, such as CRB checks, do not impact on the sporting sector? For example, the points system for migration might lead to sports clubs having to sponsor international visiting teams. Will he play a lead role in ensuring that good policies do not impact unnecessarily on sport?

Edward Miliband: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constituent who, after that question, is more of a sung than an unsung hero. My hon. Friend is right to pinpoint unintended consequences as an issue, but people sometimes get an impression about legislation that turns out not to be correct. That is why I said in my answer that we need to give people proper guidance about the CRB checks so that they know when they are needed. We shall be very much involved in that process.

Child Poverty

Mark Harper: What account the Social Exclusion Task Force takes of child poverty in setting its work plan.

Edward Miliband: Through its work on families at risk, the Social Exclusion Task Force is seeking to improve services for families and children facing multiple disadvantages such as worklessness, poor housing and mental health problems.
	Following more than 90 applications from local authorities and their partners, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Children, Schools and Families will shortly be announcing the successful councils that will develop innovative approaches to working with such families.

Mark Harper: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. He will know that the Opposition share the Government's aspiration to eliminate child poverty by 2020 but, given that the Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that the Government are unlikely to hit their target of halving child poverty by 2010, what will his Department do to make sure that the Government hit their 2010 child poverty target?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says that he shares our aspiration to meet the child poverty target, but why did the Opposition vote yesterday night against the Budget measures that would make it possible to take 250,000 more children out of poverty? It is all very well for him to say that the Opposition support the target, but that means that they must vote for the measures that will help us to meet it.
	On the wider question of the 2010 target, the Government are determined to make progress. The shadow Chancellor has said that we have one more Budget to go, and we are determined to do more to tackle child poverty.

Francis Maude: Last Thursday, the Work and Pensions Secretary—who has just come into the Chamber—said of the Government's child poverty target:
	"We aim to meet it in 2010."—[ Official Report, 13 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 445.]
	His words were rather different from those used just now by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. However, the DWP's annual report was published recently and it makes it absolutely clear that
	"these targets are unlikely to be fully met."
	In the middle of that muddle, who is right—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or his Department's annual report?

Edward Miliband: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is absolutely right—we do intend to meet the 2010 target. It is a challenging one, but the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we are determined to adopt the measures that will take us towards meeting it. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shed crocodile tears about the target, but he is in no position to talk about these matters if he is not willing to take those measures.

Family Intervention Projects

John Heppell: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of family intervention projects.

Phil Hope: Family intervention projects are pioneering new ways of working with socially excluded families. Such approaches have demonstrated real benefits for seven out of 10 families, for example in their physical and mental health and in their educational attainment. Building on that success, the Government recently launched their £16 million family pathfinders programme and extended the family nurse partnership programme to new areas of the country.

John Heppell: Does the Minister agree that, although the programmes are often portrayed as extensions of the nanny state, they are actually the exact opposite? By using a carrot-and-stick approach, we are helping people to take charge of, and responsibility for, their own lives.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that some of the pioneering work includes a family intervention partnership project in his own Nottingham constituency. Families that have probably been written off by many agencies are given intensive and tailored support to bring about change. Those projects have been remarkably successful, and that is why, through the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health, we are rolling out similar programmes across the country.

Data Protection

John Randall: What plans his Department has to improve data security across Government.

Tom Watson: The Cabinet Office is committed to improving data security. The Cabinet Secretary's review has already led to enhancements in data security across Government. I expect him to report shortly.

John Randall: Would the Minister agree that, quite frankly, the Government are in a complete shambles? I refer to the loss of private details. Can he give an assurance that he is confident that he has taken measures to ensure that that never happens again?

Tom Watson: When O'Donnell reports, there will be four action points on which we have to deliver: increasing accountability and responsibility in Departments, putting in place specific measures to protect our information, ensuring that every Department has robust scrutiny mechanisms, and, crucially, ensuring a culture change so that every public servant treats personal data like their own money.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Madeleine Moon: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 March.

Gordon Brown: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Madeleine Moon: Having met four young people from my Bridgend constituency, my right hon. Friend will be aware that it is vital that those young people have the assurance and confidence that, for their futures, there will be apprenticeships and good jobs available for them, on which they can build their future lives. Can I give them that assurance from the Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: I was pleased to meet young people from my hon. Friend's constituency and to talk about the creation of jobs and opportunities for young people. The whole House will be pleased to know today that the employment figures show that we have more people in employment than at any time in our history. Despite the global financial turbulence, which has meant unemployment rising in America and unemployment twice as high as ours in France and Germany, we have seen unemployment fall in every region and nation of the country over the last year. That is possible only because of the policies of stability and the creation of the new deal, which we will continue to pursue; that never happened under the previous Government.

David Cameron: The whole world will have been shocked by the pictures on television last night of the security crackdown and the dead bodies on the streets of Lhasa and other parts of Tibet. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, yes, our relationship with China is vital, and China is a major power, but we must be absolutely clear in telling the Chinese Government that this is completely unacceptable?

Gordon Brown: I spoke to Premier Wen of China this morning, and I made it absolutely clear that there had to be an end to violence in Tibet. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will agree with that. I also called for constraint, and I called for an end to the violence by dialogue between the different parties. The Premier told me that subject to two things that the Dalai Lama has already said—that he does not support the total independence of Tibet and that he renounces violence—he would be prepared to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama. I will meet the Dalai Lama when he is in London. I think it is important that we all facilitate discussions, but the most important thing at the moment is to bring about an end to the violence, to see reconciliation, and to see legitimate talks taking place between those people in China.

David Cameron: Can I congratulate the Prime Minister on making absolutely the right decision with regard to the Dalai Lama? It is a difficult decision, but it would not have been made any better by delaying it, and I congratulate him on doing the right thing.

Gordon Brown: We make the right decisions at all times.

Andrew Miller: May I say to my right hon. Friend that long-term unemployment is down 82 per cent. in my constituency, and overall unemployment is down by 39 per cent.? I have just been in discussions with a prospective inward investor who proposes to bring another 600 jobs to my constituency. My right hon. Friend knows that the success in turning around the economy in my area is due to the relationship between the Government and the private sector. Will he ensure that we invest in training, so that those good trends continue in future?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has fought hard for the car industry and other jobs for his constituency, and for the development of the science-based industries in the whole of the north-west region. He will be pleased to know that unemployment is falling in the whole region, that unemployment is down on a year ago, and that more jobs are being created in all parts of the country. We will continue to pursue the policies that are necessary—putting stability first by bearing down hard on inflation, a new deal to give people chances of jobs, and apprenticeships for young people. None of that would happen under the policies of the Opposition.

Nicholas Clegg: Two hours ago a retired Gurkha soldier handed over this medal to me in protest at the Government's refusal to grant him British citizenship. Does the Prime Minister know what it means for a loyal British soldier to give up a medal that he won for his long years of service to this country? Can he explain to the Gurkhas why on earth he believes that Gurkhas who have served in the Army after 1997 are worthy of British citizenship, but those who served before that date should be deported?

Gordon Brown: Let me also pay tribute to the Gurkhas. They have been in existence since 1815. They have served loyally in every part of the world, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they fought with Prince Harry over the past few months. They have done a tremendous job for our country. We are the first Government to have given Gurkhas the right to a pension, for those serving after 1997. We are the first to have given equal pay to the Gurkhas. We are the first to have dealt with the problems of married accommodation, and we are the first to say that after four years in the Army they will have the right to residence in this country. Those are changes that we have brought about. Why is the date 1997? It is the date that the Gurkhas, once based in Hong Kong, moved to be based in Britain. That is why we are honouring the promises that we made for the period after 1997.

Nicholas Clegg: That is a technical argument on a moral issue. It is a spectacular misjudgement from the man who signed the cheques for the Iraq war, but has never had the moral courage to take responsibility for it. After five years of conflict in Iraq— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. Gentleman speak.  [Interruption.] Order.

Nicholas Clegg: After five years of conflict in Iraq— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Nicholas Clegg: After five years of conflict in Iraq, at the cost of 175 British soldiers' lives, over 600,000 Iraqi civilians and £7 billion of taxpayers' money, will the Prime Minister tell the House today whether he has any regrets about his decision to support and pay for the war in Iraq?

Gordon Brown: There is a democracy in Iraq as a result of the changes that have been brought about. Millions of children are getting the benefit of education, vaccination and health care services as a result. We are rebuilding, with the Iraqis, the economy of Iraq. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to go back to a situation where Saddam Hussein was in control of Iraq.

Christine Russell: Children's centres, where community midwives, health visitors and speech and language therapists are working alongside child care providers and family support workers, are making a real difference to the life chances of children and giving tremendous support to their parents. Will my right hon. Friend please give an assurance to the House that the funding for the Sure Start programme will continue, so that every community has access to fully integrated children's services?

Gordon Brown: There is a transformation taking place in care for the under-fives. There are 1,500 children's centres now, and there will be 3,500 in 2010. That means that for most constituencies, there will be five or six Sure Start children's centres available for use by both parents and children. What would be a terrible mistake is the Conservative policy to take £200 million out of the budget of Sure Start centres. The Conservatives must explain how many areas will have their Sure Start centres closed as a result. They are proposing doing the worst by young children by cutting back on vital provision in early years learning.

David Cameron: Before the House breaks for Easter, I should like to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer some of the questions that he has completely failed to answer in recent weeks.  [Interruption.] I thought he would welcome the opportunity. Last week I asked him whether we could have free votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in this House, whereas in the House of Lords he whipped his peers on conscience issues. Can he tell us today: will we have free votes on that Bill on his side of the House when it comes here?

Gordon Brown: I made the position clear last week about this Bill. This is an important Bill that improves the facilities for research and is vital for dealing with life-threatening diseases. It is a Bill that has gone through the House of Lords. I said very clearly that everybody in this House should have the right to exercise their consciences. We will come back to the House with our proposals to take it through in later times.

David Cameron: Why can he not just tell us whether we can have free votes or not? What is so difficult about making a decision about this issue? If he cannot make a decision about this, no wonder the country is in such a mess.
	Let me try an issue that I asked the Prime Minister about two months ago—identity cards. I asked him whether he was personally in favour of compulsory identity cards. I am opposed to that; he says that it is a matter for Parliament. Well, the last time I looked he was a Member of Parliament. Will he be voting for them—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: I was in favour of them then, and I repeat that now. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the question that he never answered: is he in favour of compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals—yes or no? We are in favour. Is he against?

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to ask me questions, he should call an election, so he can ask six a week. In the meantime, my responsibility is to ask him questions on behalf of the country, and his responsibility is to answer on behalf of the Government. ID cards for foreigners are just a way of spinning biometric visas, and there is not a person in the House of Commons who is opposed to them.
	Let me try another question.  [Interruption.] It is good to see the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families sitting there so quietly this week.  [Interruption.] Very, very good. He had a choice: he had to learn either to shout more clearly or to be quiet. He has made the right choice.
	When I asked the Prime Minister about A-levels six weeks ago, he could give absolutely no guarantee that they would remain after the review in 2013. That means that children starting secondary school do not know whether they will be doing A-levels or not. I want A-levels to remain as the gold standard. Does he?

Gordon Brown: I also answered this question a few weeks ago. The review will take place in 2013. Nobody is going to take away A-levels when they are successful. What we are going to do is look at how the diplomas are working, review the issue in 2013 and then make a decision. That is a guarantee that A-levels are in business for the next five years.

David Cameron: So the Prime Minister can give us absolutely no answer for after 2013. That means that children at secondary school and their parents have no idea about what sort of examination system is going to be in place.
	The Prime Minister cannot make a decision about free votes and he cannot make a decision about A-levels. No wonder his new spin doctor Stephen Carter says that living in Downing street is like living in a surreal cartoon. There are now so many spin doctors in Downing street that they have started spinning against each other and leaving in floods of tears. There is a new strategist, a man called David Muir. Yes, I have done a bit of research—he is the chief strategist and on the internet he has listed his favourite book. It is called— [Interruption.] Is his favourite book not the following? It is called "The unstoppable power of leaderless organisations". If the Prime Minister cannot make a decision, and if he cannot run his office, why does anyone wonder why he cannot run the country?

Gordon Brown: We are dealing with the substance of issues. The Opposition are playing at politics; we are dealing with the substance of governing. It is interesting that there was not one question about the global economy. Why? Because the Conservatives do not have a policy on the global economy. There was not one question about the health service, because they have no proper policy on the national health service. There was not one question about local government services because they are cutting local government services. They have no answer to the problems of this country.

Andrew Love: With current market conditions deteriorating, will my right hon. Friend reassure this House that now is not the time to abandon the target that we have set—that 50 per cent. of all new housing in London should be affordable?

Gordon Brown: Fifteen thousand houses are being built in London in the course of a year. The Mayor has raised the target to 30,000, but he also wants 50 per cent. of those houses to be affordable housing. It is very sad that the Conservative mayoral candidate for London has abandoned pursuing that target, in the event that he were ever elected. Surely in London, of all places, we need more affordable housing. We will deliver it; the Conservatives would not.

Bob Neill: Can the Prime Minister explain how a London Underground public-private partnership contract that charges out a technician at the rate of £140,000 a year meets the Government's targets for best value? Who shall we blame for this state of affairs?

Gordon Brown: We are increasing usage of the underground in London from 1 billion passengers a year to 1.5 billion passengers a year. Public transport in London has never been better as a result of the decisions that we are taking. Unfortunately, it would be cut by the Conservatives.

John Mann: It seems certain that coal miners' beat knee is about to be made a prescribed industrial disease. In order that we can avoid another feeding frenzy for solicitors, will the Prime Minister get his Ministers to meet interested MPs to see whether a scheme can be established that gives value for money to the taxpayer, fair compensation to the coal miner and nothing to the solicitor?

Gordon Brown: I understand that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is currently looking at this very issue and at whether the disease should be prescribed and therefore liable to compensation and help. It will make recommendations to Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions in due course, and we will take action on that. I can say to my hon. Friend that it is only because we have taken action on industrial diseases over these past 10 years that miners are now receiving the compensation that they never received under the previous Government.

Annette Brooke: 2008 is the year of reading. Is the Prime Minister aware that many visually impaired and dyslexic children cannot obtain vital textbooks in accessible formats? Last year, the Government made a welcome commitment to improve the provision of such materials. Will he ensure that that commitment is delivered?

Gordon Brown: I had the privilege of being at the launch of the national year of reading. It is very important to encourage all children to get the benefits of reading. The hon. Lady rightly raises the problem of dyslexic children and others who are in need of special help. I will look at everything that she says on that matter and write to her.

Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend take action to protect children and young people from harmful content on the internet and in video games?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has been very active in protecting children, particularly children who are away from their homes, from abuse and exploitation. As she may know, we have set up the review under Dr. Tanya Byron, which is to look into the evidence of harm and measures to protect children from inappropriate content online. I have talked to Dr. Tanya Byron about her review. She will report soon. I believe that she will make recommendations that will take into account the need to see the internet as a means by which people get access to learning materials and to new technology but also as a danger and a harm on which we have to take action where necessary. I hope that my hon. Friend will look forward to Dr. Byron's report.

Robert Goodwill: Is it right that a person who has been given a driving ban for a serious offence such as causing death by dangerous driving and is subsequently given a prison sentence for an unrelated criminal offence can continue to use up their driving ban while in prison? Should it not be deferred until they are released?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and we will look at it.

Albert Owen: Last Saturday's grand slam victory shows the sporting skills and passion of the Welsh nation. In looking forward to the Olympic games in 2012 and the opportunities that they will provide to Welsh communities such as my own, Ynys Môn, which has been chosen for potential training facilities for athletes from across the world, does the Prime Minister agree that the legacy from the Olympics must be spread across the United Kingdom, and will he urge his Ministers to work with the devolved Administrations and the Olympics committee to ensure that that legacy crosses the United Kingdom and peripheral areas such as north-west Wales?

Gordon Brown: I hear that my hon. Friend has a sore throat, no doubt from cheering all over the weekend. I, too, send my congratulations to the captain and the manager of the Welsh team on their great success in the international championship.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The benefits of the Olympics must be spread across the whole country. That is the intention behind persuading the different teams to do training in particular areas of the country before they arrive in London. I understand that the Australian Paralympics team are going to base themselves in Wales for the pre-games camp. I hope that in other areas of the country, regions, cities and towns will see the benefit of such activity as we move forwards to 2012. The Olympic games are for the whole United Kingdom, and I believe that that is how the public see them.

Nigel Evans: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many post offices are due for closure in his constituency? Is he fighting to keep them open, as his Cabinet colleagues are doing in their constituencies? Does he not find it rather bizarre that they are fighting against a policy of his and of his Government that is doing so much damage to the post office network in this country?

Gordon Brown: The post offices are losing half a million pounds a day. I, too, want to see good services for post offices in every part of the country, but the fact of the matter is that there are 800 post offices where, on average, 16 people attend every week. We have got to take action. I take it from the motion that the Conservatives have tabled for debate today that they are not proposing extra money to save the post offices. Unfunded promises are empty and hollow promises to the people of this country. We have put aside £1.7 billion to make such money available to the post office network. I can only repeat what the chairman of the National Federation of SubPostmasters said this morning:
	"Post Offices do not have the customer base they used to have many years ago. Many Post Offices are far quieter than they used to be and...although this is unpopular closing two and a half thousand Post Offices, it is necessary to make sure that the remaining eleven and a half thousand have a future."
	That is what we intend: to make sure that they do have one.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before going any further, Mr. Evennett, it is not your purpose to come into this Chamber to shout down the Prime Minister, or any other hon. Member who is addressing the House—and that goes for a few others. I will not tolerate this situation.

Graham Stringer: A constituent of mine will have approximately £1,500 less spent on him for public services than the exact equivalent in Glasgow. There is increasing anger in the English regions about the Barnett formula, which is a threat to the Union. Will my right hon. Friend agree to review this formula?

Gordon Brown: We are due to publish a paper on the Barnett formula soon, but I say to my hon. Friend that the allocation of funds in the United Kingdom is based on a needs assessment that started more than 30 years ago, has been agreed by all parties subsequently, and has been followed by every Government since. It is based on the idea that we should allocate resources in the UK on the basis of need. That is the basis on which the Barnett formula exists.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Lincolnshire police authority has increased its precept by 78.9 per cent. That is the result of continuous underfunding due to a grants system that does not properly address the needs of rural areas. Would he please ensure that in the coming year there is a special one-off payment to help, and that in future the grants system is adjusted so that forces such as Lincolnshire get proper resources?

Gordon Brown: We have promised police authorities a minimum of 2.5 per cent. extra per year for the next three years. I have not seen similar promises to fund policing made by the Conservative party. As a result of doubling expenditure on police since 1997, we have more police than ever before in our history, and we are better served by police and community support officers. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is one of the reasons why crime has fallen in this country.

Celia Barlow: Figures revealed to me show that 10,500 households in Brighton and Hove are currently waiting for council homes fit to live in. Some are rehoused 20 miles away in temporary accommodation, while others are in private rented accommodation that is substandard to say the least. What additional powers will the Prime Minister make available to Members of Parliament to force Tory-led local authorities such as mine to build more affordable homes?

Gordon Brown: There is a desperate need for more houses in this country, and it is important that all the agencies that can make possible the building of housing do so. Therefore, it is sad to see that some Conservative and Liberal authorities are unprepared to build the houses needed. We are prepared to make additional funding available, as we have shown. I hope that local authorities in every area of the country will respond to the urgent need.

John Leech: My constituent, Adela Mahoro Mugabo, who is HIV positive after being raped and tortured in Rwanda, is threatened with being sent back to that country, where she will not be able to access the treatment that she requires to stay alive. Will the Prime Minister intervene to stop that travesty of justice?

Gordon Brown: I am very happy to look at the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Obviously, there is no reason to believe that people being returned to Rwanda, which is now a peaceful country, will be tortured or in difficulties as a result of that. If there is an issue about the treatment of this particular patient, we will obviously consider it.

Ben Chapman: Can it be right that a tax exile is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of funding on political campaigning outside an election period? Is it not time that that issue was tackled, and is not that best done by getting all the political parties back around the table to agree a settlement that is acceptable to all?

Gordon Brown: We have made proposals to reform party funding and we will introduce a White Paper on the matter soon. It is important to acknowledge that most of the public want a ceiling on election expenditure and on individual contributions. We are considering that; it is unfortunate that it does not have all-party support.

Greg Mulholland: Yesterday, I was pleased to present a petition to the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Ali Pourkaberian, an Iranian Christian who was supposed to be deported. We were delighted to get the news on the same day that his deportation has been put on hold. However, when will the Government accept that deporting Christians, homosexuals or anyone else whom the objectionable regime in Iran does not like is simply not facing up to our human rights responsibilities?

Gordon Brown: I think that we do face up to our human rights responsibilities, and when there is a proven case on which we can act, we will take action. I do not know about the individual case, but it is important to ensure that the system is used fairly and that decisions are made in the right way at all times.

Martin Caton: It is clear that the international drive for biofuels is doing more harm than good for food security and biodiversity, and even in combating climate change. Will my right hon. Friend take a lead in Europe by calling for the current targets to be abandoned until we have a truly sustainable generation of biofuels?

Gordon Brown: I attended the European Council last Friday and we are holding fast to the general environmental targets, which include a 60 per cent. or more reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. My hon. Friend will have noted the Chancellor's proposals on biofuels in the Budget. Of course, we wish other countries to do as we are doing in making it clear that we will make the necessary changes, based on the scientific evidence.

Angela Watkinson: What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the independence and effectiveness of Postwatch in representing the best interests of post office users?

Gordon Brown: The consultation process leads to three different stages, in which Postwatch is involved. As a result, 10 per cent. of the proposals have been changed. There is an additional stage that has been agreed whereby the chairman of the Post Office, Mr. Leighton, will examine any individual representations that are made to him after those stages. I believe that there is, therefore, a set of opportunities for people to put their case. The fact that 10 per cent. of changes have been reversed shows that the Postwatch system is working.

Jessica Morden: Gift aid makes a genuine difference to many charities, which will welcome the transitional measures that were announced last week in the Budget to help soften the blow caused by the reduction of the basic rate of income tax. Will the Prime Minister reassure charities in my constituency that there is a long-term plan, past the three years referred to, to ensure that there is no reduction in income and that we can drive up levels of giving through gift aid?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We provided £100 million a year as transitional support for those who receive gift aid relief as charities to enable them to deal with the consequences of reducing the basic rate from 22p to 20p. We have also introduced several other measures, such as a comprehensive programme for bringing additional smaller charities into gift aid and outreach to many new charities to help them use gift aid to advantage. Of course, in the past few years, the amount of tax relief available to charities has risen from £1.9 billion to £2.9 billion. That is £1 billion extra through tax relief going to the charities of this country. That would not have been possible without proper economic policies that were working for the people of Britain.

Anne McIntosh: The Prime Minister will be aware that the global economic downturn is sending jitters through the whole economy. He will also be aware that there is a delay in the European Union on a decision regarding state aid for Northern Rock. That will obviously be causing great concern to those whose jobs are at risk and to small investors in Northern Rock, such as me. When does he expect the Commission to give a ruling on state aid provisions for Northern Rock?

Gordon Brown: I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady would support the policy that we have proposed on Northern Rock, as someone who has followed what has happened, and that she might disagree with what those on the Opposition Front Bench have done. As far as the European Union is concerned, we are in discussions with the Union, and I believe that it will approve our proposals. I believe that our proposals are right for the company, right for the work force and right for the stability of the economy, and I believe that we will make progress very soon.

Gordon Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regenerating small towns and cities is as key as regenerating large ones, and that universities can be part of that process? With that in mind, will he welcome and encourage the ambitious plans of Blackpool and the Fylde college to give a new cutting edge to the leisure and creative industries and to business, in our university plans in Blackpool?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is a persistent campaigner on behalf of Blackpool and its regeneration. It is important to recognise that colleges of education, colleges of higher education and universities are some of the biggest employers in our towns and cities. It is only because of the Government's policies to expand higher education, to have more students and apprenticeships, and therefore to have more people staying on at school in education afterwards, that it is possible to contemplate new universities in this country, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

National Security Strategy

Gordon Brown: The primary duty of Government, and our abiding obligation, is and will always be the safety of all British people and the protection of the British national interest, so, following approval by the National Security Committee and the Cabinet, the Government are today publishing the first national security strategy. It states that although our obligation to protect the British people and the British national interest is fixed and unwavering, the nature of the threats and the risks that we face has in recent decades changed beyond all recognition and confounds all the old assumptions about national defence and international security. As the strategy makes clear, new threats demand new approaches. A radically updated and much more co-ordinated approach is now required.
	For most of the last century, the main threat was unmistakable: a cold war adversary. Today, the potential threats that we face come from far less predictable sources, both state and non-state. Twenty years ago, the terrorist threat to Britain was principally that from the IRA; now it comes from loosely affiliated global networks that threaten us and other nations across continents. Once, when there was instability in faraway regions or countries, we had a choice: to become involved or not. Today no country is, in the old sense, far away, when the consequences of regional instability and terrorism, as well as risks such as climate change, poverty, mass population movements and even organised crime, reverberate quickly round the globe.
	To address these great insecurities—war and terrorism, and now climate change, disease and poverty; threats that redefine national security not just as the protection of the state, but as the protection of all people—we need to mobilise all the resources available to us. They include: the hard power of our military, police, security and intelligence services; the persuasive force and reach of diplomacy and cultural connections; the authority of strengthened global institutions, which can deploy both hard and soft power; and, not least because arms and authority will never be enough, the power of ideas and of shared values and hopes that can win over hearts and minds and forge new partnerships for progress and tolerance, involving Government, the private and voluntary sectors, community and faith organisations, and individuals.
	The foundation of our approach is to maintain strong, balanced, flexible and deployable armed forces. I want to pay tribute to Britain's servicemen and women, and those civilians deployed on operations, who every day face danger doing vital work in the service of our country, and in particular to remember today the sacrifices made for our country by all who have been injured or who have lost their lives in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of war.
	To raise recruitment and to improve retention in our armed forces, we will match our new public information recruitment campaign, launched this week, with the Government's first ever cross-departmental strategy for supporting our service personnel, their families and veterans. This will be published shortly.
	In the past two years we have raised general pay levels and introduced the first tax-free bonus of nearly £400 a month for those on operations, as well as a council tax refund, and today the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing new retention incentives for our armed forces. There will be increased commitment bonuses of up to £15,000 for longer-serving personnel, and, starting with a new £20 million home purchase fund, we will respond to the demand for more affordable home ownership for servicemen and women.
	I can also inform the House that, to meet the threats ahead, after a trebling of its budget since 2001, the Security Service will rise in number to 4,000, which is twice the level of 2001. I can also inform the House that we will be increasing yet again, this time by 10 per cent., the resources for the joint terrorism analysis centre, which brings together 16 departments including the police and intelligence agencies, and giving it a new focus on the longer-term challenge of investigating the path to violent extremism.
	I can also confirm that, to meet future security needs, we have set aside funds to modernise our interception capability; that at GCHQ and in the Secret Intelligence Service, we are developing new technical capabilities to root out terrorism; and that the new Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which we set up last year, will provide a higher level of protection against internet-based threats.
	The strategy published today will be backed up by a new approach to engage and inform the public. Two years ago, we removed from being classified as secret the information on threat levels for the UK. We will now go much further. Starting later this year, we will openly publish for the first time a national register of risks—information that was previously held confidentially within Government—so that the British public can see at first hand the challenges that we face and the levels of threat that we have assessed.
	To harness a much wider range of expertise and experience from outside Government, and to help us plan for the future, we are inviting business, academics, community organisations and military and security experts from outside Government to join a new national security forum that will advise the recently constituted National Security Committee. Having accepted the recommendation of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I thank it for its work—to separate the position of Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from policy adviser to the Government, and having appointed Mr. Alex Allan as Chair of the JIC, I can confirm that, as proposed by the Butler review, his responsibility will be solely to provide Ministers with security assessments formulated independently of the political process.
	We will also immediately go ahead to introduce a resolution of both Houses—in advance of any future legislation—that will enshrine an enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. This will lead to more parliamentary debate on security matters, to public hearings on the national security strategy, and—as promised—to greater transparency over appointments to the Committee, so that the Committee can not only review intelligence and security but perform a public role more akin to the practice of Select Committees generally in reporting to and informing the country on security matters.
	Emerging from all the experience and lessons learned of the last decade is the clear conclusion that we are strongest when we combine the resources of our military, police and security and intelligence services with effective diplomacy, and when we work closely with international partners to confront the new global challenges and bring about change. This approach emphasises the importance of strengthening our key diplomatic and military alliances: with the United States, our strongest bilateral partner; with NATO as the cornerstone of our security; with our central role at the heart of an outward-facing European Union; and with our long-lasting and deep commitment to the Commonwealth and to working through international institutions.
	I can tell the House that Britain will be at the forefront of diplomatic action on nuclear weapons control and reduction, offering a new bargain to non-nuclear powers. On the one hand, we will help them, and we have proposed the creation of a new international system to help non-nuclear states to acquire the new sources of energy that they need, including through our proposed global enrichment bond, and we are today inviting interested countries to an international conference on these important themes later this year.
	In return, we will seek agreement on tougher controls aimed at reducing weapons and preventing proliferation—first, by ending the stalemates on the fissile material cut-off treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and, secondly, by achieving, after 2010, a more robust implementation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the aim of accelerating disarmament among possessor states, preventing proliferation and, ultimately, freeing the world from nuclear weapons. And, as a new priority to meet the dangers both of proliferation to new states and of material falling into the hands of terrorists, we propose not only tougher action against potential proliferators such as Iran but new action against suppliers. We are seeking to strengthen export control regimes and build a more effective forensic nuclear capability in order to determine and expose the true source of material employed in any nuclear device. Having already reduced the number of our operationally available warheads by 20 per cent. and made our expertise available for the verifiable elimination of warheads, I can confirm that we, Britain, are ready to play our part in further disarmament.
	As great a potential threat and as demanding of a co-ordinated international response is, of course, the risk from failing and unstable states. Again, the national security strategy published today proposes a new departure—and, again, it is a lesson learned from recent conflicts ranging from Rwanda and Bosnia to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. It proposes to create a stand-by international civilian capability so that for fragile and failing states, we can act quickly and comprehensively by combining the humanitarian, peacekeeping, stabilisation and reconstruction support that those countries need. In the same way as we have military forces ready to respond to conflict, we must have civilian experts and professionals ready to deploy quickly to assist failing states and to help rebuild countries emerging from conflict, putting them on the road to economic and political recovery.
	I can tell the House that Britain will start by making available a 1,000-strong UK civilian stand-by capacity that will include police, emergency service professionals, judges and trainers. I am calling on EU and NATO partners to set high and ambitious targets for their contributions to such a force.
	Between now and 2011, Britain is offering £600 million for conflict prevention, conflict resolution and stabilisation work around the world, including work in Israel and Palestine, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenya and the Balkans. As we assume our presidency of the UN Security Council in May, we are proposing an appeal by the UN Secretary-General for a co-ordinated crisis recovery fund to provide immediate support where reconstruction is needed, to which Britain will be prepared to contribute.
	Specifically, because we know the importance of peace in Darfur, I am announcing today more help from Britain to train, equip and employ African troops for the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping operation. Given the importance of safeguarding peace in Somalia, I can announce that Britain will help to pay for 850 Burundian troops as part of the African Union peacekeeping force there. Given the critical importance of economic and political reconstruction complementing military action as the elected Afghan Government face down the Taliban, we are proposing an integrated civilian-military headquarters—headed by a civilian—that will now be constituted in Helmand. And in Iraq, where we have already brought electricity and water supplies to more than 1 million citizens, we are stepping up our contribution to the work of long-term economic reconstruction by supporting the Basra development commission, led for the British by the businessman Michael Wareing who is doing an excellent job.
	In order to maximise our contribution to all the new challenges of peacekeeping, humanitarian work and stabilisation and reconstruction, the Secretary of State for Defence is also announcing this afternoon that, as part of a wider review, the Government will now examine how our reserve forces can more effectively help with stabilisation and reconstruction in post-conflict zones around the world. With this year being the 100th anniversary of the Territorial Army, I want to pay tribute to the servicemen and women in our reserves, who provide such an essential element of our nation's defence.
	Mr. Speaker, the security strategy published today also makes it clear that, as well as being able to respond to crises as they develop, we need to be able to tackle the underlying drivers of conflict and instability. Those include poverty, inequality and poor governance, where by focusing on areas where poverty breeds conflict, we have quadrupled Britain's aid budget and we are pushing for bold international action to meet the millennium development goals.
	The second set of underlying drivers is climate change and competition for natural resources, where we are leading the way in arguing for a post-2012 international agreement and for a new global fund to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change, including in the areas most under stress and therefore most likely to suffer instability as well as humanitarian disasters.
	The third drivers are disease and global pandemics, where, with the World Health Organisation, the priority is to improve early warning systems, to increase global vaccine supplies and to help put in place a more co-ordinated global response. Given the importance of building stability and countering violent extremism in the middle east and south Asia, we are also increasing the number of Foreign Office staff there by 30 per cent.
	Among all the security challenges to citizens of this country covered by the new strategy, the most serious and urgent remains the threat from international terrorism. As the head of MI5 has said, Britain is facing 30 known plots and is monitoring 200 networks and about 2,000 individuals. There have been 58 convictions for terrorism in just over a year and the Home Secretary is announcing today that we will have four regional counter-terrorism units and four regional intelligence units, significantly increasing anti-terrorism police capability in the regions. Since the events of 11 September, on suspicion of being a threat to national security or fostering extremism, 300 individuals have been prevented from entering the country. Now—backing up the unified border agency, compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals and our proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that would allow us in unique circumstances to extend detention to ensure full investigation of terror threats—the Government will match stronger action against those whom we suspect of stirring up tensions with collaborative work with our European partners to strengthen the EU rules on deporting criminals—a matter that I shall discuss with President Sarkozy when he visits Britain next week.
	For action against terrorism and against organised crime, it is important to strengthen Europol and Eurojust, to ensure the rapid and secure exchange of information across borders, and to speed up the extradition of criminals and the confiscation of their assets. Starting with the United Arab Emirates, we are signing more agreements so that once the assets of a convicted criminal are seized in one country, with the assistance of the other, both countries will get a share of the proceeds.
	Our new approach to security also means local resilience against emergencies: building and strengthening local capacity to respond effectively to a range of circumstances from floods to potential terrorism incidents. That means not the old cold-war idea of civil defence, but a new form of civil protection that combines expert preparedness at local level for potential emergencies with a greater local engagement of individuals and families themselves. Next month the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will report on additional measures that we propose for young people in colleges and universities, in prisons and working in faith communities to disrupt the promoters of violent extremism, all building on the support of the vast majority of people of all faiths and all backgrounds who condemn terrorism, terrorists and their actions.
	The national security strategy shows a Britain resolute in the face of an unstable and increasingly uncertain international security landscape. It demonstrates the lessons that we and other countries have learnt in recent years: that we must expand our policing, security and intelligence capacity—and we are doing so; that we must do more to prevent conflict by, for instance, more effective international control of arms—and we are doing so; and that we must strengthen the effectiveness of international institutions to promote stability and reconstruction, for which we have presented proposals today.
	We will always be vigilant, will never leave ourselves vulnerable, and will support and at all times and wherever necessary strengthen—as we do today—our defence and civilian support for national security.
	I commend my statement to the House.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me first put on record the huge debt of gratitude that we owe the police, the security services and our armed forces for the work that they do to keep our country safe.
	The Prime Minister made a very wide-ranging statement, and there was much in it that we support. We welcome the idea, which we have long supported, of a stand-by civilian capacity so that we can act quickly in fragile or failing states. We also support the idea of a cross-cutting manifesto for forces' families. I set it out in my party conference speech two years ago, and I am glad that it is bearing fruit. We strongly back what the Prime Minister said about greater co-ordination of our effort in Helmand province. Anyone who has been there knows that that really is needed.
	However, I want to focus my questions on the theory and practice of a national security approach. The statement has been a long time coming, and at first sight it looks—and sounded from the Prime Minister—rather more like a list than a strategy. It would help if instead of announcing a series of things that the Secretary of State for Defence or the Home Secretary is to announce, the Prime Minister simply told us more clearly what will change and why the position will be different. Owing to the tenor of his approach, that did not come across at all clearly. That may be because the strategy has had a very difficult birth. According to sources inside Downing street,
	"it... has proved a bit of a disaster... Its genesis has been marked by delays, indecisiveness at the top, a total lack of funds"—
	 [Interruption.] I am reading because it is a very long quotation. The hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) has been warned before. He is slowly getting closer to the door—he used to sit behind the Prime Minister—and, as I said yesterday, apparently the door is what he will be going through. The quotation continues
	"and some glorious Whitehall squabbling."
	We will study the strategy in detail, but the idea of a national security strategy—

Jacqui Smith: Shocking!

David Cameron: Shocking? It is shocking when people interrupt all the time when I am trying to reply to the statement.
	The idea of a national security strategy is one that we welcome. The need for a national security approach is clear: the threats to our national security, from terrorism to climate change and energy security, have proliferated, and the Government must adapt to deal with them. That is why, in 2006, my party said that it was time not just for a national security strategy but for a national security council. Does the Prime Minister agree that a national security strategy will work only if it is put in place and carried out properly? To achieve that, three things must happen. First, institutions in the UK need to be properly organised to deliver a national security approach. Secondly, we need to understand fully the connections between foreign and domestic policy, and how they impact on our security. Thirdly, and vitally, any strategy will make sense only if the Government follow through and take all the necessary practical steps.
	Let me take each of those in turn. Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government have decided to set up a national security forum—another talking shop—instead of a proper national security council? Surely, a proper national security council would have dedicated staff— [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the Prime Minister will sit and wait, then he can answer the questions at the end. A proper national security council would have dedicated staff and decision-making powers. It would be at the heart of Government, with all the relevant Ministers, and it would be chaired by the Prime Minister. We do not have that; we should have it. Can he explain how a forum and an existing Cabinet committee can drive the implementation of a national security strategy across all Departments? Are we not in danger of having a talking shop and confusion?
	On the connection between foreign and domestic policy, is there going to be a properly joined-up approach? The Prime Minister talked about a single security budget, but will it genuinely cover all the areas? For instance—and I have asked him about this before—will the single security budget include special branch, which is currently funded by separate forces? The United Kingdom must retain the power, properly funded, to intervene abroad militarily when necessary, as the strategy says, but we must understand that military operations abroad have consequences for security at home. As the Joint Intelligence Committee warned, our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which we supported, increase in the short term the threat of terrorism domestically in the UK, yet we have to ask whether all the necessary action was taken domestically at the time. It is clear that the answer is no.
	That leads to the third issue—the importance of following through on the national security strategy. The Prime Minister has a number of questions to answer. First, why, despite Government statements to the contrary, has he still not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is clearly a gateway group that seeks to poison young minds against our country and way of life?  [ Interruption. ] He says, "My goodness", but the previous Prime Minister said that he would ban it, so why has it not happened? Why, despite rightly preventing the preacher of hate, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, from entering Britain following our recommendation to do so, has he not followed the lead of the Irish Government and excluded Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for the terrorist organisation, Hezbollah, who recently conducted a speaking tour of the UK? Why has his Government allowed public money to end up in the hands of extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood? Does he understand the damage done to our reputation by the perception that the UK has allowed itself to become a terrorist breeding ground and a threat to others? Why, despite the urgent need to secure our borders, does he still refuse to create a proper border police force with enforcement powers? What is holding him back from those obvious and necessary measures?
	May I end by asking the Prime Minister to begin his response by answering the following question? A national security approach will not succeed unless we learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past. In the statement, he talked about learning the lessons from conflicts such as Rwanda and Iraq. With that in mind, does he not think it is time to establish the promised inquiry into the conduct of the Iraq war? To say that that cannot be done while our forces are still in Basra is effectively to kick this into the very long grass, and it flies in the face of the fact that the United States, for instance, has held such inquiries. When he stands at the Dispatch Box, will he answer that question and tell us when we will have that inquiry, which, if we are to make a national security strategy work, is clearly needed.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the standby facility and for the co-ordination of our efforts in Helmand. I am grateful, too, for his support for our armed forces and security services generally. I am afraid, however, that only he can trivialise a national security statement. If he had done his research, he would know that there is a National Security Committee, which includes the Chief of the Defence Staff, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the heads of all the intelligence agencies—MI5, MI6 and GCHQ—the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who attend the meetings. The terms of reference are to consider issues relating to national security and the Government's international and European policies, as well as their international development policies. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking for we have already. It is chaired by the Prime Minister, and it met only last week. It meets regularly to look at the relationship between domestic and international issues, and it has been in existence for several months, apparently without his knowing about it.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of an inquiry on Iraq and asked what lessons we have learned. I made it very clear in my statement that we are expanding our policing, security and intelligence capability. We want to do more on the early prevention of conflicts by more effective international control of arms. We want to strengthen the international institutions to promote stability and reconstruction, and, of course, our forces, including the security forces, are always vigilant. As for an inquiry, four inquiries have reported to the House on conditions related to the action in Iraq. It would not be a good use of Ministry of Defence resources to have to reply to an inquiry, when we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be right, when we have troops in danger and at risk, particularly in Iraq, for the country to turn its attention to an inquiry instead of doing everything we can to protect them. We will therefore be consistent in our judgment, even if his party is not consistent on this matter, that the right time to look at these issues and review the lessons learned is when our troops have finished the work in Iraq, which they are conducting with great efficiency. They deserve our full support, the wholehearted attention of the Ministry of Defence and the support of all the institutions of government.
	I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman about the thesis behind the work that we are doing. As I said at the beginning of the statement, there is growing recognition that we cannot distinguish between issues that are somehow "over there", as if they have no effect on our country, whether they concern the environment, terrorism or national disasters, and what happens in our own country. It is a fact, as we found with 11 September, that the richest citizen in the richest city in the richest country can be directly affected by what is happening to the poorest citizens in the poorest countries in other parts of the world. Our security strategy must reflect that, which is why we are looking at what we can do internationally on the control of weapons and to rebuild international institutions. That is why, too, we are looking at what we can do domestically do improve our resilience.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people who have come into the country. Three hundred potential terrorists or people suspected of extremism have been refused admission into the UK in recent years, so we are alert in taking action against those who pose a danger. As he knows, the decision was made to refuse Mr. al-Qaradawi a visa—he has not applied for entry into the UK—for this country. Mr. Moussawi came to the UK in December and again on 28 February. On both occasions, his visit passed without incident. In all those cases, however, we keep matters under review. In relation to Hizb ut-Tahrir, I have said that we will be vigilant in examining its activities. Our consistent advice is not to give that organisation the oxygen of publicity by banning it. We wish, however, to keep it under review. We will always take the action that is necessary, but we will look at it case by case, and everyone with a sensible voice on these matters in the House would propose that we do so.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. Before dealing it, may I say that we have witnessed some breathtaking political opportunism, because the leader of the Conservative party pressed for an inquiry into a war that he and all his colleagues signed up to support lock, stock and barrel, with no questions asked? Perhaps we need an inquiry into how his party has flip-flopped on Iraq.
	I agree that an overarching view of the different threats to our nation's security is necessary. However, I hope that the Prime Minister agrees that the document that he has put before the House is the beginning, rather than the end, of the process. What we have heard today is an assessment of what the threats are, but not quite yet a strategic overview of how all those threats will be tackled. I hope that more time will be made available to the House to examine the document in greater detail.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that many of the threats he has enumerated—terrorism, climate change, cross-border crime—cannot be dealt with by the United Kingdom on its own, and, indispensably, we can deal with them only as full and committed members of the European Union? I noted that in his statement he referred to the EU only third after the United States and NATO as a crucial forum in which many of the collective security threats will be tackled. Does that attach enough significance to the extent to which our membership of the EU affords us a certain safety in numbers?
	The Prime Minister has in the past talked about drawing red lines in Brussels. I wonder whether the time has now come for him also to draw red lines in our relationship with Washington. Why, for instance, has he entered into a secret deal with the United States Administration to base George Bush's "son of star wars" missile defence system on British soil? Does he seriously think that that enhances our national security?
	The Prime Minister spoke about the need to have strengthened global institutions. I agree with that. We all agree that we need a rules-based multilateral system to safeguard all our security. Does he, however, think it is compatible with that view of the value of a strong, multilateral, rules-based system that he has been completely silent—so far at least—on President Bush's veto of the proposed ban on the use of torture by American military personnel around the world?
	I hope the Prime Minister will also agree that security and liberty are two sides of the same coin. We should never be forced to accept that there should be a trade-off of one in favour of another—that our security can be promoted only by a sacrifice of our liberty. For that to be the case, does he also agree that any measures that infringe on our liberty in the name of security must be based on overwhelming, compelling evidence that they are necessary, and does he truly think that the Government have yet marshalled that overwhelming, compelling evidence in favour of their proposal to extend further the period of detention without charge?
	The Prime Minister spoke of a wider review being undertaken by the Secretary of State for Defence. We all know that our armed forces are overstretched, overcommitted and under-resourced. Does the Prime Minister agree that as it has been 10 years since there was a full strategic defence review, it is high time that he announced a new full strategic review of our defence capabilities for today and the years ahead?

Gordon Brown: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that we are spending more on defence every year, and we are making equipment available to our armed forces that was not available in the past. The Chief of the Defence Staff said only a few days ago that the forces were now better equipped than at any time for 40 years. That is because we have not only increased the budget for defence, but we have made available what are called urgent operational requirements to the Ministry of Defence, as a result of which £3.3 billion has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past two years—exactly the money the right hon. Gentleman was opposing only a few minutes ago when he raised another question in this House.
	I have to correct the right hon. Gentleman on one or two issues. The ballistic missile defence system is for the Czech Republic and Poland, not the United Kingdom. The European Union does not have an official role in foreign and security policy; it is an intergovernmental organisation, in part for dealing with defence and security policy. He should understand that that is how the European countries interact for the preservation of security, and that that is why NATO is so important—and also why the Bucharest summit in the next few days is so important.
	I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman supports what we have done for the armed forces, with up to £15,000 for retention so we can retain more of our highly qualified people in our armed forces for longer. That announcement of today will raise the number of people in the establishment—in the Army, Navy and Air Force—to a higher level than before.
	As for the issue of torture, the right hon. Gentleman will know of our record of opposing torture in every part of the world. As for what he says about the powers of detention, he—and even the Conservative party—has supported the Liberty proposals that say there may be circumstances in which more than 28 days is necessary for arresting and interviewing someone before charge. I believe he should look seriously at the similarities between the original Liberty proposals and those we are putting forward. We are not saying that in every circumstance someone who is detained must be detained for up to 42 days; we are saying that there should be a reserve power and that if the Home Secretary, with others, decides it should be used, she would come to the House of Commons and ask for that power to be activated. That is very similar to the power proposed by Liberty that the right hon. Gentleman supported because he recognised that there may be circumstances in which it might be necessary to go beyond 28 days. That is not what is at dispute, even though he wants to think that is the issue. The issue is the mechanism that we use. I hope the Liberal party will rethink what I believe is an incredible position on this issue.

Margaret Beckett: I warmly welcome the publication of this first national security strategy and its rich content, not least its drawing together of issues such as climate change and nuclear non-proliferation, which tend to be dealt with separately in public debate, but which are obviously part of a continuum in public policy making. I also very much welcome what the Prime Minister said about both the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee and greater resources for the agencies it monitors. Will he confirm that he recognises—as, I believe, does the Committee—the importance of maintaining the delicate balance between a welcome greater openness to Parliament and the public, and maintaining the operational effectiveness of those agencies on which our security so much depends?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments. She pushed for non-proliferation when she was Foreign Secretary and made very important disarmament proposals, and we have drawn on the work she has done in today's national security strategy document. I also appreciate the work she is now doing as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will go ahead with our proposals, with a resolution to the House, for more parliamentary debate on security matters, and I believe all Members will welcome the fact that there will be wider debate on these issues. The national security strategy can be subject to hearings in public before the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I believe that there is agreement among Committee members that that would be a good thing to do. There will also be greater transparency over appointments to the Committee. I believe that these three measures will give the Committee an enhanced role in explaining to the public some of the difficult and complex issues of national security, but we will do nothing to put at risk what my right hon. Friend rightly says is the delicate and balanced relationship between the need to inform the public and the need to retain the support and confidence of security agencies, which do so much for the good of the country but which have to be protected in the work they do for reasons all Members regard as obvious. I believe that our proposals get the balance right.

David Maclean: The Prime Minister rightly paid tribute to the magnificent work that the Territorial Army is undertaking in overseas war zones. Will he and the Defence Secretary look to give an enhanced domestic role to the TA in dealing with security incidents at home, should they happen? If there is a major terrorism incident in this country, the regular Army and our security services will be hard-pressed. There could be an ideal role for the Territorial Army both in contributing to the security containment zone that will have to be set up, and in terms of the specialist units and dealing with the clean-up and the aftermath. The Territorial Army used to have a domestic role when some of our battalions were committed to NATO. This could be an ideal future role for it.

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I am grateful that there is a bipartisan approach. The review of the Territorials—it is 100 years since they were created, and it is appropriate that we have this review now—will look at exactly the issue he raises: their domestic as well as their international role. He rightly says that volunteers and the Territorial Army have played a great role in civil emergencies in recent years; we want to look at that as part of the review, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to contribute to it.

Keith Vaz: I, too, warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement, with its emphasis on co-ordination and benchmarking. On parliamentary accountability, the last time the Select Committee on Home Affairs took evidence from the head of MI5 we travelled in a car that had darkened windows, we entered the building through the garage and we had a private session. Even though the information he gave us was excellent, we could not quote from it in our report. Will other Committees be able to take evidence from the head of MI5 in public, where it better informs us of decisions, so that we can report back to Parliament?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend rightly points to the co-operation and briefings that he has received as part of the Home Affairs Committee's work from the head of MI5. We should return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett). It is important to get the balance right between the desire to show to the public as much as possible of the work that we are doing in the most open and transparent way and the need to protect our security services in the work that we do. We will continue to get that balance right.

Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there are things to welcome in this statement—to call it a strategy would be to over-egg the pudding—as so often with the Prime Minister, the rhetoric collides with the reality? We no longer have strong, balanced and flexible armed forces—they are grossly overstretched and underfunded, and we cannot go on paying retention bonuses for anything other than a sticking plaster operation. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is right to call for a defence review so that some necessary major procurement decisions may be taken for the future. We cannot run a procurement policy on urgent operational requirements. We must be able to take the decisions about the carriers and about Trident, areas that all need examining again.

Gordon Brown: We have already made our decisions about Trident and have set aside the money for that to happen. We have set aside money for aircraft carriers as well. We have the biggest equipment budget in history and, at the same time, we are spending more current money on our defence forces every year. That is why we have the second largest defence budget in the world. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that our defence forces are not strong—they are strong and we are proud of them for being strong, and they are flexible and we are proud of them for being flexible. I know that he is a prolific reader, but I doubt whether he has read the full national security strategy in the past few minutes. I hope that on reflection, once he has read it, he will be able to praise the work that we have done and contribute to the debate on it for the future. We will annually update the national security strategy, and obviously we welcome any comments from him.

Tony Lloyd: I very strongly welcome the parts in my right hon. Friend's statement about nuclear weapons, not least because the terrorists' capacity to obtain them is a serious one. In the same vein, does he recognise that biological and chemical weapons possibly pose an even bigger threat? It is probably easier for terrorists to obtain access to those weapons because of the nature of them. Will he give the same urgency to dealing with chemical and biological weapons—the so-called "poor man's nuclear weapons"?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a huge interest in these matters having been a Minister at the Foreign Office. He rightly says that although I emphasised in my statement the measures that we wish to take to promote nuclear disarmament, references are also made in the national security strategy document to the dangers and risks posed by chemical and biological weapons. He is right to say that the dangers of those weapons falling into the hands of potential terrorists mean that we have to examine not only the owners of those weapons but who is supplying them. We now have excellent ability to do post-fact detection of who the supplier is, which should enable us to locate the suppliers of chemical, biological and nuclear weapon parts and take strong action against them. That is an important part of the national security strategy that we have published.

Elfyn Llwyd: What role does the Prime Minister foresee for Her Majesty's Coastguard in national security?
	I was in Darfur a few weeks ago, where I was briefed by some African Union's senior military figures. They told me that a no-fly zone and a dozen attack helicopters were urgently necessary. Both of those points were raised 12 months ago, but people are still dying who would not be dying if those things were put in place.
	Finally, the Prime Minister refers to a more robust implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. Is the renewal of Trident not a breach of that treaty anyway?

Gordon Brown: No is the answer to the third question.
	I praise the work of Her Majesty's coastguards—indeed, I visited many of them some weeks ago to thank them for the work they do both on rescue and on the security of the country.
	As for Darfur, I agree with the hon. Gentleman: this is a human tragedy that is being acted out, involving a threat to the lives of young children as well as to those of adults. He rightly says that we should consider a no-fly zone. The problem with such a zone, as I have said before in this House, is that we are dealing with an area the size of France—a massive geographical area. Therefore, the aircraft requirement to be able to police a no-fly zone is way beyond what countries are prepared—or able at this time, because of other action in Afghanistan and elsewhere—to supply. That is the problem in respect of a no-fly zone at the moment. People must be realistic enough to recognise that it is difficult enough to get the supply of helicopters that he is talking about, so staffing and policing a no-fly zone is very difficult, even when aerial bombings, which are completely unacceptable, are taking place.
	As I said last week in the House, the way forward in Darfur is to get the peace negotiations started again, to get both sides—not only the Government, but the rebel groups that never came to the original proposals for the peace talks only a few weeks ago—to the talks and to get the African Union and United Nations force in to back up whatever settlement can be agreed. Those are the priorities, and I hope that we can move forward on them with speed.

Gordon Banks: The Prime Minister mentioned the new civilian capability. Can he tell me whether he intends UK industry to participate in that organisation so that it, too, can play its part?

Gordon Brown: We have an industrial strategy for the defence industries that was published a few months ago. It will be regularly updated, it is the source of a great deal of consultation with the defence manufacturers and it is a very important part of building confidence in this country's defence manufacturing industries. We will continue this collaboration, which has been of great use to us in the past and has been intensified in recent years.

Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the Prime Minister's earlier answer on the Territorial Army and reserves, may I urge him to look across the Atlantic at the model of the National Guard, which, besides making a remarkable contribution in dealing with both Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath of 9/11, also provides highly effective combat brigades and fast jet fighter squadrons for use in Iraq? May I suggest that the basic lesson that we can learn from America is that an organisation is most successful—the National Guard is the only part of the American armed forces that is fully recruited—when it is led at all levels by volunteer reserves, when it has a real footprint in every part of the country and, above all, when it is used as a force in its own right, be that for combat, peacekeeping, disaster relief and so on, and not merely as a provision of spare parts for the regular counterparts?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the Territorial Army and I understand his deep interest in these matters. I believe that the proposals that he puts forward and his desire that we look at what is successful in other countries, including the United States of America, are things that we can draw on during this review. I hope that he will contribute his thoughts to the Defence Secretary as he moves forward with the review.

Joan Walley: I particularly welcome the support that the Prime Minister will be giving to our armed forces and the £20 million homes investment plan, although more may be needed in respect of social housing. On climate change, it is essential that we develop a strategy for sustainable global security. Will he have talks with the Oxford Research Group in delivering the new role that climate change will play at the heart of our global strategy?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of taking action on climate change. That is why not only are we making proposals for international action to secure a post-2012 agreement, but we are proposing that the World Bank should take on a new role as a world bank for the environment, as well as for development, so that it can provide money for energy-efficiency schemes and for alternative sources of energy to be invested in by some of the poorer countries in the world. International co-operation is vital to deal with the problems of climate change. She probably knows that we are sponsoring a major afforestation project in the Congo basin. It is one of many projects that we are prepared to support with the environmental transformation fund.
	My hon. Friend also raises the issue of armed forces' accommodation. In total, £5 billion has been allocated for improvements in accommodation over many years, but is important that we make a start as quickly as possible with some of the schemes that can give the greatest results. That is why the £20 million set aside for these armed forces equity sharing and home ownership pilots is important to send a message to members of the armed forces that as they prepare to move to new careers later, we will help them to buy their first home.

Malcolm Bruce: Could the Prime Minister give some indication of the implications of this statement for the Department for International Development, which plays a key role in fragile and failing states and in conflict prevention, resolution and stabilisation? Does he agree that it may be an appropriate time to review the fairly severe staffing constraints on that Department, if it is to be able to provide civilian support and co-ordination, as well as poverty reduction?
	Can the Prime Minister also give me an indication of the proposal for Helmand for an integrated civilian-military headquarters headed by a civilian? How will that relate to the provincial reconstruction team that is already established? Is it a replacement for that or something that will have to co-ordinate with it? Is he able to give a clearer steer on how that will operate?

Gordon Brown: They will work together. The right hon. Gentleman may know that we are determined to move as quickly as possible to appoint a development co-ordinator in Afghanistan, as that is urgently needed. As he will know, Lord Ashdown would have been a great appointment to that job, but that was not possible. Now we have a proposal for a regional appointment and I hope that that will make quick progress.
	On aid, I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The budget of DFID, and Britain's aid budget generally, has quadrupled from £2.1 billion to nearly £9 billion by 2011, so there is additional money available for the priorities of the Department. He is right to say that in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as in Africa and in Israel, and in dealing with the Palestinian authorities—we will need DFID. If we are to combine humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, stabilisation and reconstruction, it has a key role to play.

Nigel Griffiths: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to climate change. Will he support my proposals for a world environment court and review the work of the working group chaired by Stephen Hockman QC to ensure that the Kyoto targets and the post-Kyoto targets are enforceable?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this matter and the effort he makes in his constituency to persuade young people, especially schoolchildren, to take an interest in the environment. His proposal for the world environment court is an interesting one. We have to get to the first stage first, and that is persuading all countries to accept binding targets. That will be our priority in the post-2012 negotiations, and we will ally to that our proposal that funding be made available to developing countries to persuade them that it is in their interests to sign up to those agreements. How we make those agreements binding is a matter for the discussions, and obviously his proposal is one that will be taken into account.

Anne Main: I note with interest the Prime Minister's comments about recruitment and retention, and about supporting servicemen's families. Part of that package is facing up to things that go wrong, and the coroner's inquest is where many of those things are brought to light, as happened in the case of Captain James Philippson, who was sadly let down by a lack of equipment. Will the Prime Minister request the Secretary of State for Defence to row back in trying to gag our coroners and dilute their comments? Will the Prime Minister also ask that the Minister for the Armed Forces retract the comments that appeared to cast a slur on Captain James Philippson's comrade-in-arms, Major Bristow?

Gordon Brown: I hope the hon. Lady will acknowledge that we have made more money available to make it possible for coroners' inquests to move more quickly. We understand the grief that is experienced by relatives, the desire for closure and the problems that arise if inquests are delayed or are slow in happening. However, I do not agree with her interpretation of the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence. It is important that the coroner's inquest does the work it is intended to do by statute.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend will know that today the security agencies are watching more than 2,000 people whom they believe have serious terrorist intent. Those people will have multiple identities and their behaviour is little known to us. It is therefore important for the House to hear the argument for pre-charge detention clearly and carefully put so that we can be confident in supporting it, because it is definitely needed.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the balance between the needs of liberty and security is an important issue. It is also important to recognise that our constitution is founded on the liberty of the individual, but all parties now seem to have accepted that there may be occasions when it is necessary to go beyond 28 days for the pre-charge interviews, if that is necessary for a proper charge to be laid. That is what the debate is about. All parties agree that there may be circumstances in which that might have to happen. The question is whether we can agree on the mechanics of it, and that is what the debate will be about.

Nigel Dodds: I join others in paying tribute to the fantastic job done by our servicemen and women, and the police services, in keeping our country safe both at home and abroad. I welcome many elements of this comprehensive statement today, in particular the help given to service personnel and their families, although I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that more could and should be done on that front.
	On the specific issue of the national security forum, the Prime Minister referred to the threat posed to this country's security by the IRA over many years. Indeed, the threat continues in relation to dissident groups in Northern Ireland. He talks of drawing on experience from outside government. Would he undertake to consider the experience and expertise available in Northern Ireland, which—tragically—have been built up over many years? I am sure that they would be made available to assist in protecting the country from the current more diverse but very challenging threat to its security.

Gordon Brown: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have to draw on the expertise that is available from all parts of the United Kingdom. I assure him that what he says will be taken into account in formulating the membership of the national security forum, but also in learning the lessons from the actions that had to be taken against terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Point of Order

Christopher Huhne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the Prime Minister has misled this House, both about the position of my party but more importantly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that. He must withdraw that remark.

Christopher Huhne: On your advice, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that point, but it is clear—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the remark without qualification. My ruling is that that is not a point of order. Are there any other points of order?

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It had better not be on the same issue, because the hon. Gentleman has just made a mess of it. Points of order are not about extending the statement that we have just heard.

Christopher Huhne: Please hear what I have to say.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear what he has to say, but I warn him that I will stop him if it is not a point of order.

Christopher Huhne: This morning on the "Today" programme, a Minister made exactly the same point as the Prime Minister just made and was subsequently corrected by Liberty about its position. Liberty does not have the ability to correct the matter in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is one thing that I am not responsible for, it is the organisation Liberty. It can speak for itself.

Local Authority Powers (Election Campaigns)

Tobias Ellwood: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose restrictions on the types of decisions that local authorities can take during specified periods prior to local elections; and for connected purposes.
	I hope not to take up the full 10 minutes, because I know that we are coming to an important debate on post office closures to which many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute. Many Ministers have also been working hard in their constituencies and no doubt they, too, will want to get their views on the record.
	The objective of the Bill is to bring local councils in line with Parliament and to prevent any major decisions from being taken during the period of a local election campaign. For Parliament, there is Cabinet Office guidance for what is known as the pre-election period about the types of decisions that can be made. It states:
	"During an election campaign, the Government retains its responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge of their Departments. Essential business must be carried on.
	However, it is customary for Ministers to observe discretion in initiating any NEW action of a continuing or long term character.
	Decisions on matters of policy on which a new Government might be expected to want an opportunity to take a different view from the present Government should be postponed until AFTER the Election."
	So it is official that no major decisions can be made during the four weeks of an election campaign but, following the Prime Minister's recent performance, I am led to believe that he might not be aware that it is just those four weeks. He seems to be doing it all the time.
	No such rule applies to local authorities. It could be argued that we do not need such a policy, because we know when the election date will be and if we are all fair about it councils can ensure that no ambiguous, controversial or large financial decisions are made during that election period. Guess which party in local government decided to exploit that loophole and to take advantage of the absence of policy? Yes, I am afraid that it was our dear friends the Liberal Democrats, who will do anything to get elected. They will cuddle you during the daytime only to cross you by nightfall. They scandalously seek and practise power without responsibility.
	By way of illustration, let me take the House back to last year's local elections and the night of 3 May 2007. It was a great evening, as you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Conservatives gained 921 seats. The Liberal Democrats, I am afraid, lost 246 seats, but it was described by the then leader of the Lib Dems, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), as a mixed bag of results—not an accurate judgment, I think, of the day's events.
	In Bournemouth, the big issue on the campaign trail was a proposal by the incumbents—the Lib Dems—to build a multi-million pound development on Bournemouth's sea front. Such was the unpopularity of the proposal that it contributed to the Lib Dems' losing control of the town hall. They lost 23 seats, returning only seven councillors out of 51.
	On the election night itself, long after the working day was over, the Lib Dems tiptoed into the town hall, not to clear their desks or pick up their sandals, knowing that they would not be back in office, but to place the final signature on a controversial contract that committed the people of Bournemouth to a massive seafront development that they did not want. Why did they do this? Nobody knows. Even cross-examination by Jeremy Paxman on "Newsnight" could not get the chief local Lib Dem plotter, the aptly named Councillor Fudge, properly to explain that malicious, selfish and vindictive behaviour. Yes, there were inquiries. Even the Electoral Commission got involved, but it was eventually determined that nothing illegal had been done. Morally and ethically speaking, however, I believe that the Lib Dems are guilty as charged as they deliberately burdened a town with a development that it did not want and the new administration with the costs that it campaigned so hard to avoid.
	My Bill would prevent such scandals from being repeated and other councils from being subjected to such tactics. How would it work? It would require all local authorities to introduce a policy preventing major financial or controversial decisions being made in the four weeks leading up to an election. It would be up to the individual councils to determine the size of the budget and the other parameters. All that would be required would be that the matter be debated locally and local decisions be made.
	Local authorities need not wait for my Bill, which I hope will be passed, but can adopt an appropriate policy themselves. I encourage them to do so. However, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no council would be subjected to the costly, time-consuming and completely avoidable dramas endured by Bournemouth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill—

Simon Hughes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should rise a little more promptly.

Simon Hughes: I rose immediately.
	I just want to say a few words that show that the Bill is unnecessary. I have not followed the Bournemouth events in detail, but my understanding is that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has not given the full picture of what happened before the local elections last year. My understanding of the position is that the political decision was taken entirely properly before the election period and that all that remained to be carried out was the implementation of that which was in the hands of officers. No new political decision was taken later at all.
	If that is the case, which is what I am led to believe, the normal rules were followed in Bournemouth as they have been in many local authorities up and down the country. In Southwark back in the '80s, the outgoing Labour administration, thinking that it might be defeated at the polls, entered into a controversial planning application and a land property deal just before the election. The political decision was taken earlier, but the documents were signed on the day before the elections. I understand that that is legitimate if it is a matter of administration rather than political decision. If that is the case, the Bill is not necessary. We have plenty of legislation and plenty of controls on local councils, with an absolute guarantee that purdah applies in local government up to local elections in England.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who normally argues from his party's position, which is that we do not need more legislation, will reflect on the fact that more legislation restricting local government is the last thing that any party in local government wants and any council in administration wants. That includes his party, which now runs Bournemouth council.
	 Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tobias Ellwood, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Richard Benyon, Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Edward Vaizey, Greg Clark and Anne Main.

Local Authority Powers (Election Campaigns)

Mr. Tobias Ellwood accordingly presented a Bill to impose restrictions on the types of decisions that local authorities can take during specified periods prior to local elections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 90].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[7th Allotted Day]

Post Office Closures

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the main business, the Opposition day debate on post office closures. I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and has placed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the proposal to close up to 2,500 post offices; recognises the vital role post offices play in local communities; notes the concern and unpopularity amongst the general public of closing such a large portion of the network; has concerns that the access criteria laid down for the closures consultation do not adequately take into account local geographical factors and public transport networks; is concerned that the consultation period is only for six weeks rather than three months, as recommended by Cabinet Office guidelines; believes that post offices must move with the times in the services they offer and that options for business expansion and developing business opportunities with local authorities should be explored further; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Limited to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices while these issues are re-assessed.
	This matter affects both sides of the House in equal measure. I was concerned a moment ago that only two Labour Back Benchers were sitting in the Chamber but I see that the numbers are now swelling. I shall try to keep my remarks to a minimum, because I know that Members from all parties want to speak.
	We are entering a critical phase of the Government's closure programme. Half of the country's constituencies have now gone through the process of consultation and as a result approximately 1,120 post offices are already destined to close. The network change is well on its way, yet the chorus of dissent that surrounded the then Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, when in 2006 he published his proposals for the most radical programme of cuts in the Post Office's history has not faded away, as his successor will have hoped. In fact, the more people encounter the process at first hand, the more they realise that it is not just unfair, but in many respects illogical; not just badly thought-through, but in some cases even avoidable.

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Ancram: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Duncan: I have hardly got off first base, but I will. If I may, I will set the scene and then give way to a series of interventions from Members from both sides of the House so that I do not end up taking 40 minutes. The quicker I get through this, the better it will be for allowing everybody to have the chance to say what they want to.
	I agree with what the Secretary of State has said on numerous occasions: we have to face the facts about the future of postal services in this country. The debate has not been convened whimsically. We understand that the Post Office is haemorrhaging around £4 million a week; that the development of online mail has eviscerated part of the Post Office's traditional customer base; and that in this difficult business climate, uncertain times lie ahead.
	Although the closure of post offices is one of the most emotional political issues, we in the Opposition do not lead with our heads. Let me make it clear that we fully expect the network to shrink in size. We have never given a guarantee that no post offices will close, because such a guarantee is not ours to give.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).

Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought that he might have been giving the Government too much of a defence in respect of the problems facing the Post Office. The effect of online ordering has been to increase the amount of delivery work undertaken by post offices. People order goods online, but delivering those goods is a new business opportunity for Royal Mail, with post offices as collection points.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is potentially right, but we must distinguish between the post office network and Royal Mail, as it is the latter that makes those deliveries. That is an important distinction, and it must be admitted that the internet has displaced much of the revenue-earning activity previously enjoyed by post offices.
	I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes.

Michael Ancram: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He was talking about the process by which the decision about closures was made. One post office to be closed in my constituency is in an area where a significant new housing programme is about to begin. The alternative post office is already notorious for being overcrowded and incapable of being expanded. Does that not suggest that the consultation process was a farce, and that what we are seeing is a lottery in order to meet a Government target?

Alan Duncan: My right hon. and learned Friend illustrates exactly the sort of example that is driving Members of this House to distraction. There appears to be a lack of commercial logic to many of the decisions being forced on the post office network.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend said that the consultation process was unfair, but is it not also fraudulent? In my area, we have been told that all that will happen if we succeed in persuading the Post Office to keep open one of the post offices that are threatened with closure in the Cherwell district is that it will simply go ahead and close another office in the district. It is clear that the Government are determined, come what may, to close all the post offices in Cherwell, however good the arguments against doing so may be. The consultation process is therefore wholly fraudulent.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. It is something that I want to expand on, ever so briefly, in a few minutes. If I may put it this way, we are involved in a game of pass the parcel. All hon. Members have in their constituencies post offices that are due to be shut, but if they succeed in keeping one office open, another one elsewhere will be closed. Therefore, what might appear to be a local success for one hon. Member becomes a local difficulty for another. That is one of the main problems that we face.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee has reported on post office closures. I put in a very detailed draft of evidence, including nine recommendations for changing the closure programme. However, 50 other hon. Members from both sides of the House also put forward evidence, and they included Front Benchers from the Conservative party. If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about this matter, why did he not offer any evidence to the Select Committee?

Alan Duncan: Because I think that it is improper for a Front Bencher to try to pre-empt and influence a Select Committee in that way. The proper way for me to speak about these matters is at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. That is what I am doing now, on a day when the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to vote with the Opposition.

Robert Key: My hon. Friend is wholly right about displaced closures, but the problem is worse than he suggests. In my constituency, the county council is negotiating about taking over the post office at Laverstock on the edge of Salisbury, but despite that, the Post Office is insisting on closing it on 1 April and on removing the post office equipment—even though it might be taken on by the county.

Alan Duncan: Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. It fits exactly with the picture that we are painting—a picture that cannot fail to be persuasive for hon. Members on all sides of the House.

Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee—what used to be the Trade and Industry Committee—has looked into the matter quite deeply. The Committee is chaired by his colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff). It looked at the cost of haphazard closures, and reluctantly accepted that the Government's plan was the only way forward. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) knows full well what the Committee recommended, and it looks a little sneaky to have this debate today, at a time when the Select Committee is away and the Chairman has no opportunity to reply. Is he afraid that some Conservative Back Benchers might have been persuaded by the Committee Chairman?

Alan Duncan: Much more sneaky is the fact that the hon. Gentleman is trying to hide behind the supposed conclusions of the Select Committee—which I think are not as he described—when he has signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The wording of that early-day motion is exactly the same as the motion under consideration today, so he can have no option but to vote with us—along with the 35 other Labour Members who have echoed, word for word, what we are calling for in this debate.

Ann Clwyd: I was not one of those who signed the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but is there not an element of hypocrisy in his approach? The previous Tory Government closed 3,542 post office branches. Why did they do that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I advise the House that the word "sneaky" is just about allowable, as is the right hon. Lady's use of the word "hypocrisy". However, we must be extremely careful about the words that we use. I know that hon. Members care very strongly about these matters, but we should nevertheless choose our words with care.

Alan Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the right hon. Lady should be aware of her own words. She said:
	"I do not understand what the, so called, public consultation was for...I want Post Office Ltd to explain how this can amount to a meaningful public consultation, when they have ignored the views of 2,203 people."
	We are seeing a picture of inconsistency, but my purpose today is not to keep on pointing out the inconsistency between what Labour Members say at a local level and how they might vote tonight; rather, I want to urge them to vote with us so that they can prove that they are honest and consistent.

Oliver Letwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that one concern for people in constituencies such as mine in West Dorset is that the Post Office has absolutely refused to enter into discussions about how we might provide the voluntary effort that would cut its costs and keep the services open? Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs?

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend is right, but only half right. The Post Office has declined to embrace both voluntary efforts and legitimate commercial efforts. Even worse, it is discriminating against the commercial options that post offices and shops should be allowed to enjoy.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: I will, and then I shall do a rat-a-tat-tat after that.

Hon. Members: On the Table!

Michael Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a member of the BERR Committee, I should point out that we said that we reluctantly accepted that there would have to be some closures, but not necessarily those planned by the Government. In both our original report and the recent follow-up to it, we have questioned where the figure of 2,600 closures came from, and asked why that round figure was chosen.

Alan Duncan: I would love to see the envelope on the back of which that arbitrary number was written.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the Post Office have carried out the consultation process in an extremely underhand way? The process has been different in different areas of the country, and there have been attempts to gag the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses involved. The Government and the Post Office have tried to prevent any shops that might subsequently be set up when a post office is closed from selling the same products for a year afterwards. That will make it very difficult for a village shop without a post office to carry on trading. Are not all such tactics underhand?

Alan Duncan: There is a grave suspicion that a lot of the tactics involved are underhand.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I shall take one more intervention from each side, then make some progress. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).

Henry Bellingham: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, as he is being very patient and indulgent. There is serious anger many sub-postmasters in North-West Norfolk, who say that it is an outrage and a disgrace to be told that they will not get any redundancy pay if they carry on offering services for the lottery, the payment of utility bills, private courier services and so on. Does he agree that that is a disgraceful restraint of trade?

Alan Duncan: In my view it is, and I shall explain why in a moment. Finally, at least for the moment, I give way to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter).

Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who will be pleased to know that I plan to make some fairly harsh criticisms of the fundamental flaws in the consultation process.
	I was attracted to the wording of the motion, but the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that the post office network is losing a substantial amount of money. If I am to be tempted to vote for the motion, will he give an undertaking on behalf of his party to put £1.7 billion of investment into the network so that it can be sustained in a good old socialist fashion up to 2011?

Alan Duncan: I will not do that, and furthermore I do not need to do that to win the argument today, because the whole purpose of what we say is that we should give an opportunity for the money that is being spent to go a lot further, and give a lot of branches the opportunity to continue to exist; at the moment they are being bulldozed into submission.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I will have a pause from taking interventions; I shall take more in two or three minutes.

Sarah Teather: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: Well, I think that I am obliged to give way to the Front Bencher of another party.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago, an hon. Member suggested that the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform indicated that it supported the Government's closure of 2,500 post offices. I have before me a press notice issued by the Select Committee. It says clearly:
	"This is not a report about the principle of closing 2,500 sub post offices as that is settled government policy and one on which we have commented previously. It is a report about how the process is being managed and the implications for communities."
	That is not the same as the Committee saying that it supports the closures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not, strictly speaking, a point of order for the Chair. It is more a matter that would normally be raised in the course of debate.

Alan Duncan: The time was when an hon. Member who had been put right with the kind of accuracy that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) used would have stood up and apologised for the mistake.

Michael Clapham: I will read out the recommendation in the report. It says quite clearly:
	"We do not think it is satisfactory simply to accept that the network may continue to shrink in an unplanned way between now and 2011; Post Office Ltd should be obliged to use its best endeavours to keep the network at a minimum of 11,500 fixed outlets."
	That is the report.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman had already stuck his finger in the fire; he would have been well advised not to do it again.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I really should give way, one final time, to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), the official spokesman for her party.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman likes to portray himself as the saviour of the post office network, but he does not have a plan for investing in upgrading the network. He was just asked a clear question about his plans for investment. He has a series of proposals, supposedly aimed at increasing revenue, but nothing on increasing the investment in modernising the post office network. How can he justify claiming that he can save all those post offices?

Alan Duncan: The investment in the post office network is, to a large extent, already made by private individuals who take a risk and invest in their own company—the family business—so the hon. Lady's question is misdirected. Much more pertinent is the question of what those businesses can be allowed to do to enable them to expand and have a prospect of survival, rather than annihilation. We would like them to be able to take on more tasks, so that they can expand the business that they can undertake. Sub-postmasters are entrepreneurs. They want to develop new services and they want to survive on business, rather than on subsidy.

Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: No.
	Sub-postmasters should be able to develop more financial services; they should be able to take on local council work; they should be able to take on Government services; and they should be able to do a lot of things that the Post Office currently forbids them to do. Let me briefly say why we think that the current activity forced on the Post Office by the Government is flawed.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: No. I will move on, as I said I would.
	First, there are the flawed access criteria. They are simple, linear, as-the-crow-flies measures. There is no appreciation in them of hills, crossroads and main roads that have to be crossed. There is no proper appreciation of the nature of a community built around the use of a post office. Furthermore, a lot of the census figures and population figures that the Post Office is using are completely out of date and unrelated to the effective market catchment area of the post offices that are threatened with closure.
	Many in this House think that the consultation is a sham. They know that the 2,500 figure has been picked out of the air. The Post Office is ramming through the closures, and if a Member of Parliament succeeds in keeping one post office open, another one will shut. Absurdly, someone who phoned up the Post Office and asked, "Excuse me, why is my village post office closing?" was told, "Because the postmaster wants to retire." "That is not true," said the caller; "I know it; I am the postmaster." What is more, community is being pitted against community, because when a post office in one village is saved, another is shut elsewhere.
	As for the post offices that are told to close, there appears to be no rationale for distinguishing between the ones that the Secretary of State always cites as having only 20 transactions a week, and those that are far more active and very popular, and which are run alongside a profitable shop and are basically viable businesses that are being forced to close for no rational economic reason whatever.
	We are calling for a freeze on the consultation. If the Government doubt whether that is possible, let us point out that, to a limited extent, they have done it already; they suddenly realised that their plans cut across the campaigning period for a local election and, indeed, a mayoral election, in which their own candidate even threatened judicial review because he is so against the policy of the Government whom he is once again pretending to support. The idea that there cannot be a freeze is absurd. There has been a semi-freeze already, and we think that there should be a suspension so that all the new ingredients that have become clear over the past few months can be factored into a revised programme that could perhaps, on the same money, allow many of those post offices that are currently being forced to shut to stay open.

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman talks about maintaining viable post offices, but in fact only 4,000 post offices in this country are profitable—a word that he previously used. How many of the other 10,000 would he subsidise, and how many of them would be expendable under his plan?

Alan Duncan: I can but quote the hon. Gentleman's own website. To use his exact words, he
	"condemned the decision, which he said was inexplicable given the high levels of activity at each of the offices in question."

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he is making his case. Is he concerned that the 2,500 post offices are just the tip of the iceberg, as a number of other post offices have been closed on a temporary basis, including the one in Heath End in my constituency? Is that not just another political trick? The Government are trying to keep the number of those post offices out of the 2,500, but those post offices are also condemned.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Today we are hearing, basically from Members on both sides of the Chamber, sorry tales of how the closure programme is being implemented in their constituencies.

Andy Reed: rose—

Alan Duncan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow Leicestershire MP.

Andy Reed: I would like the hon. Gentleman to return to the point that he started to make, but failed to finish, in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster). He started to explain that he thought that a particular number of post offices would make for a viable network, but he rapidly moved on. Will he today commit himself to a figure, and will he say what additional expenditure and commitment the Government should make to ensure that the number is reached? Before he quotes back at us some of the proper representations that we have made in our constituencies, let me ask him to answer the question.

Alan Duncan: I have never called for a specific number. I am calling for some logic in the judgment on which post offices are viable and should remain open, and which are not.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I shall make a few more points; I promised I would not take up too much time, but this has been a shared performance. However, the clock is ticking away. Let me come on to something that I think is enormously important, both for urban and rural communities, namely the link between the post office and the shop. In many post offices, and most of those threatened with closure, there is an alliance with a shop that is part of the same business, and is on the same premises. A shop is an essential part of any community. It is its focal point, its hub. We are not just talking about the end of the opportunity to go and buy some stamps and post a letter; more often than not, the closure of the shop is in harness, in tandem, or in parallel with the closure of the post office.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

Alan Duncan: I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I want to say why what is happening at the moment is especially pernicious.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend some more ammunition. In Bicknoller in my constituency, we have a voluntary shop and post office. Every single volunteer goes there because they want to, and the postmaster gives everything that he earns back to the post office, yet it is still being shut. When I asked the Post Office why, it said, "It needs to be shut; you haven't got enough people," even though everything goes back into that shop to keep it going. Does not my hon. Friend find that ridiculous?

Alan Duncan: The post office network and shops are private enterprises. Families have risked money and borrowed—often against their only residence—to start and run a business. Many who have started to do that only recently, having taken a risk in good faith so that their shop can go hand in hand with the post office, are finding that the rug has been pulled from beneath them, that the shop and the post office will go, and that they may not be able to meet their debts.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I shall give way to hon. Gentlemen in a moment. I want to make a couple of important points first.
	I am extremely concerned, as are hon. Members in all parts of the House, about the way that the compensation is working. It is all very well to offer a postmaster compensation in the hope that he will not face financial adversity, should the post office shut, but that compensation attaches only to the post office. As I have already said, many of those enterprises run in parallel with a shop. What is deeply pernicious is the way in which the Post Office is setting terms and conditions on the compensation in a way which, as well as closing the post office, will also destroy the shop.
	What the Post Office is doing, which I think amounts to a restraint of the trade of shopkeepers, is saying that if they take the money for closing down the post office counter, they will be prohibited thereafter from doing certain things in the shop. They will not be allowed to sell lottery tickets. They will not be allowed to conduct certain transactions which, in the eyes of the Post Office, might technically compete with it. They will not, for instance, be able to install a PayPoint terminal, which is a revenue-earning service for the shop, but competes with the Post Office. So in offering compensation, the Post Office is effectively putting a restrictive covenant on trade that could be enjoyed by the shop.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) says, "Standard business practice". If he thinks it is standard to be so irresponsible, let me tell him that I do not.

Rob Marris: It is standard business practice. I know that as a lawyer working in employment law. There are restrictive covenants in all kinds of contracts with respect to the activities that an individual may and may not undertake. People sign up to that. It is a financial transaction. Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a financial transaction with those restrictions which is supported by the National Federation of SubPostmasters.

Alan Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the future viability of the Post Office will be undermined and destroyed by village shops being able to get someone to pay a bill at their counter, the advice that he might have given to business in the past does not bear scrutiny.

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be something else that we are in danger of losing—the post office branch as a social safety net? There are those who are alone and possibly elderly, who come into the post office regularly for benefits or pensions. If they do not come in one week, perhaps the only person who will notice is the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. If the branch is no longer open, who does my hon. Friend think will fulfil that role?

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have no doubt that it will be made in the debate in future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Alan Duncan: I shall make progress and then give Labour Members a final chance to chip in. I am conscious of the clock. The House can tell that I have been racing through my remarks as quickly as possible. I want to give hon. Members a chance to speak, but I shall point out aspects that matter particularly to Labour Members.
	There was an early-day motion at the beginning of the year signed by 35 Members from the Labour Benches. It is pretty well word for word the motion before the House today. The only respect in which I have heard that it is thought to be different is the use of the word "instruct" in the context of instructing the Post Office to suspend its consultation. That is dancing on the head of a pin. It would be intellectually dishonest of any Member to think that that gives them a let-out clause.
	The Government, through the shareholder executive, owns the Post Office. They instructed the compulsory closure programme to start in the first place, so they can equally instruct the Post Office to suspend it. As I said earlier, in part at least because of the local elections, they have already done just that. So the insinuation of the word "instruct" is no excuse for those hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion not to vote with us tonight.
	Furthermore, we know that hon. Members, including Ministers and Cabinet Ministers, are campaigning in their own constituencies. I entirely accept that there are occasions when the Government—even the Government of their own colour—do something and hon. Members want to make a stand for their constituents, but what we are seeing are not just a few scattered examples of an hon. Member saying, "I must defend the interests of my constituents"; we are seeing a wholesale operation across the entire map, with almost every Member doing that. Thus, wholesale activity makes a mockery of what should be collective responsibility. Collective action has driven through collective responsibility.
	Of even deeper concern is the fact that the Secretary of State revealed in an interview
	"that he might campaign against Post Office closures in his own back yard."
	He said:
	"'I want to see what the detailed proposals are'"—
	he happens to be in charge of them, but never mind—
	"'but my job doesn't make it impossible . . . I'm the member of Parliament for my constituency. If I think people have got a legitimate concern I'm going to raise it with the Post Office'".
	Fair enough, except for this: when everyone is doing it, it is not just representing our constituents; it is collectively denying the entire policy of the Government.
	There is a more perturbing point. As we all know, if a Member succeeds in keeping one post office open, under the current plans another one will shut. We can but ask whether a Secretary of State who is in charge of the shareholder executive that owns the Post Office might perhaps have more clout in those negotiations than a mere Back Bencher. If the Secretary of State can keep one or two post offices open in his constituency, where does that leave his colleagues in a neighbouring constituency?

Richard Burden: A few moments ago, if I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was arguing for more predictability in the framework in which shopkeepers operate, depending on whether or not they have a post office. Part of that predictability relates to the level of subsidy that they can expect from the Government. What level of subsidy for the sub-post office network is the hon. Gentleman suggesting?

Alan Duncan: The same as is proposed, but the purpose of our argument is that it can go further if people are not bulldozed into closure by a misguided compulsory plan.

Chris Ruane: rose—

David Borrow: rose—

Alan Duncan: I will not give way. I want to conclude so that hon. Members, such as those on their feet, will get the chance to speak. I note that there are probably three times as many on the Opposition Benches as on the Government Benches.

Chris Ruane: It is an Opposition debate.

Alan Duncan: Yes, but it affects every constituency. That is why it is pertinent for me to point out that 90 Members on the Government Benches have been campaigning in their constituency against post office closures. That is about a quarter of the parliamentary Labour party, and includes seven Cabinet Ministers. It will be interesting to see how they vote tonight.

Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend says "every constituency". Can he offer any logical explanation why four post offices should be closed in Mid-Sussex but none at all closed in Crawley, the most marginal Labour seat in the land?

Alan Duncan: I cannot give any polite logical explanation for the perceptive observations of my hon. Friend.
	The Secretary of State knows that our arguments are valid. He is very uncomfortable about the closure programme that has been forced on the Post Office. He knows, because he will have heard it every day from right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches, that there is deep unhappiness across the entire House about the way that is progressing. He has a reputation in the Government. As shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, I think that occasionally he speaks a lot of sense. However, the problem that he faces when he speaks that sense is that it is not necessarily popular with his Prime Minister—the very man whom he once described as someone who would make a "bloomin' awful" Prime Minister— [Interruption.] I translate for the sake of decency.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Alan Duncan: Today, however, we learned something else, and the finger of suspicion points at the Secretary of State. We are told that somewhere in Downing street, someone—thought to be a member of the Cabinet—is a poet, a bard. Given the flavour of the language, it can be but one person. The four lines published on the website of  The Spectator today are clearly the Secretary of State's:
	"At Downing Street upon the stair,
	I met a man who wasn't Blair,
	He wasn't Blair again today,
	Oh how I wish he'd go away."

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Alan Duncan: Today is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to enjoy a massive political revival. He could make himself one of the most popular and rational men in the Government by instructing the Post Office to suspend the closure programme and give much hope to the many hard-working postmasters whose enterprise, hard work and service to their communities deserve better than they are getting from the Government.

Hugh Bayley: He's frit! Frit!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that.

John Hutton: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"recognises the vital social and economic role of post offices, in particular in rural and deprived urban communities; notes the decline in post office customer numbers in recent years and the financial losses of £174 million incurred by the network in 2007; further recognises the effect of changes such as direct debit facilities and increased use of the internet for payment and communication; commends the Government's action to support the post office network with investment of up to £1.7 billion up until 2011, including an annual subsidy of £150 million; further notes that this subsidy did not exist under the last government and that without it thousands more post offices would be under threat; and urges the Government to continue working with Post Office Limited to ensure a viable and sustainable network for the future.".
	Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). The poetry that he has just quoted is not mine. I say that for one simple reason: I would write better poetry. Those are absolutely not my words. I do not mind my own quotations being attributed to me, but I fundamentally resent words that are not mine being attributed to me.
	Right at the beginning, I should like to acknowledge the important economic and social contribution that post offices make in all our constituencies. They play an obviously important role in cities, towns and villages right across the country. It is perfectly right and proper that hon. Members on both sides of the House should today have the opportunity to express our appreciation for the work that thousands of sub-postmasters do day in, day out.

John Baron: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: I shall in a minute. I shall give way to as many hon. Members as I can, but I ask for the House's indulgence for a few minutes so that I can begin to make my argument; I suspect that that is all I shall be able to do this afternoon.
	Having acknowledged the importance of post offices, I should say that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), I believe that we should acknowledge one other inescapable fact, however difficult it is. The role of post offices is changing, first as a result of technology and much greater use of the internet, and secondly because of different patterns of consumer behaviour. Both those factors have combined to reduce substantially the numbers of people using their local sub-post offices and to increase substantially the losses being incurred by the Post Office. We have a responsibility to address the reality of those changes.

John Baron: rose—

David Borrow: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

John Hutton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), and then to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow).

John Baron: I hear what the Secretary of State is saying. However, he has to accept that we have a ludicrous situation in south Essex, particularly in my constituency. Post offices that are profitable and serving an expanding population are being closed. Essex county council has put £1.5 million on the table with a view to trying to allow a number of those post offices to continue in service for the benefit of the local community. Will the Secretary of State at least delay the decommissioning of those branches to give the council the time it requires to explore that possibility further?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue about Essex; I want to say something specifically about the Essex proposal later. I hope that he will allow me to do that in my own time.

Several hon. Members: rose —

John Hutton: Let me finish my point. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested in exploring whether the proposal opens up a new opportunity. I hope that it does. Obviously, the discussions need to continue. I shall come later to the detail of the proposition, but it might be helpful if I make it clear now—I was going to do so later—that today I have written to the chief executive of the Post Office about these matters. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library so that hon. Members can refer to it if they choose.

David Borrow: In Lancashire, the consultation process finished two and a half weeks ago. When I received a letter from Opposition Front Benchers, I was tempted to consider voting with them today. However, I have read the Opposition motion. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we approve it, we will simply delay the whole process? In the absence of any new money, the same number of post offices will close in the end as are scheduled to close now.

John Hutton: I am grateful for that point. In a few minutes, I want to come to the substance of the motion.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Edward Davey: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: rose—

John Hutton: I shall give way in a moment. I want to come to the substance of the Opposition motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble has rightly identified, there is a significant problem with the proposition that we should simply postpone making decisions. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has made it clear—this is important for my hon. Friends, who I am sure heard what he said—that he is not prepared to match the subsidy that we propose to invest in the Post Office. Somehow, he believes that that will allow the subsidy to go further, but of course it will not—it will mean a significant diminution in the effectiveness of the subsidy that is going in.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: rose—

Tim Farron: rose—

John Hutton: I give way to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is my constituency neighbour.

Tim Farron: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he and I share an interest in some of the post offices scheduled for closure, including Greenodd post office. Does he agree that this should not simply be a case of pushing the issue off into the far future? There is a perfectly good framework that we could use to suspend the process and give local communities the chance to make decisions that affect their lives. I am thinking of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which comes into force as of this September/October. We have the ridiculous situation in which the Government would write to local authorities such as South Lakeland asking what they could do to make communities more sustainable. The response would be, "Well, we would have said that our post offices should be kept open—but you've shut them."

John Hutton: We have not prevented local authorities from making arguments about how there could be a sustainable future for the local sub-post office network in my or the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example. I do not accept that there is a legal conflict between the process now under way and the future legislation to which he has referred. We are not preventing local authorities from making any contribution to the debate about a sustainable future.

Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that three quarters of post office branches are not profitable and that many more would close if there were not £150 million a year of public subsidy? Has he noticed that the Government's amendment explicitly supports that subsidy, whereas the Opposition motion does not? Will he issue a challenge to the Opposition, at least when they come to vote on the substantive motion, to support the Government amendment and the public subsidy to the Post Office?

John Hutton: My hon. Friend must have had a sneak preview of my speech, because I am going to make that point soon. It is an important issue for my hon. Friends to consider during this debate. They are being invited to support a Conservative motion that might will the ends but does not provide the means. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, but he has to be able to stand in this place and say that he is willing to make the investment in sustaining the network for which he now claims to be the champion. He has completely failed to do that.

Alan Duncan: As the Secretary of State well knows, I have. The spending plans have been publicly announced. They are there, and remain unchanged.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman was specifically invited to comment on the issue at the beginning of the debate; we will have to check the record in  Hansard. He will have to deal with what I am sure will be in  Hansard tomorrow. He was specifically asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) to say whether he would commit to the £1.7 billion. We all heard him say clearly that he was not going to do that.

Glenda Jackson: I should like to reassure my right hon. Friend that I have no intention whatever of voting for the Conservative amendment, which comes from a party that when in government had absolutely no compunction about closing post offices, schools, hospitals, mines and heavy industry. However, there is real concern in my constituency about the proposal to close three highly efficient and consistently well-used post offices. I entirely accept that the usage of post offices has changed, but the people who use them most consistently and will be most severely affected if they are closed include the elderly, the disabled and single parents with small children. Is it not possible for the Post Office to put forward a proper cost-benefit analysis of what it is proposing as regards closures so that the consultation is genuine?

John Hutton: I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who, like all other Members of this House, is perfectly entitled to put her argument to the Post Office, which has the responsibility for making these decisions in individual areas. Ministers are not making decisions about which particular sub-post office should or should not stay open. I am grateful to her for acknowledging that there has to be change in the network. My advice to her—I am sure that she does not need it from me—is that if strong arguments can be put, they should be. The Post Office has a responsibility—

Mark Pritchard: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: When I have dealt with my hon. Friend's point. When she has made those arguments, as I am sure she will, the Post Office, working together with Postwatch, will have to address them seriously. We acknowledge the substance of her point; that is why we are making £150 million-worth of subsidy available to support a much more extensive network than would have been supported if we were simply considering these issues on the basis of profit or loss—which post offices were making a profit and which were not. That is not part of the access criteria. We are trying to explain how the new network will work, how it can be sustainable and how it can address the concerns that my hon. Friend and others have raised.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. Given that seven Cabinet Ministers are campaigning with faint protest against the closure of post offices in their own constituencies, will he give an undertaking to the House that there will be no special access arrangements for Government Ministers visiting either him, other Ministers or officials in his Department, and that there will be equal access for all Members of this House campaigning against post office closures?

John Hutton: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman and the House that assurance. The ministerial code makes it very clear, and rightly so—this has never been contested across the House—that Members of Parliament, even when they are Ministers, are perfectly entitled, as Members of Parliament, to make representations, in this case not to Ministers but to the Post Office, which is making decisions on closures. It would be an outrage if they were not able to do that. Of course, if any right hon. or hon. Member wants to come and discuss this issue with me, I am always available to have such discussions. There will be no special access—that would be quite wrong—and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one has sought such special access.

Andy Reed: Rightly, many Members have made specific representations on behalf of individual post offices, and progress has been made in some cases. Does my right hon. Friend think it significant that although the Opposition motion makes no commitment on additional moneys, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) seems to have hinted at the same number of closures taking place? Will my right hon. Friend expand on the implications of that dichotomy and the contradiction whereby the Conservatives want the same level of closures without committing to provide the same amount of money? That sends out false hope to many of our constituents who will have been misled by the Conservative motion.

John Hutton: I would very much like the opportunity to do that, and if I can make some progress I will do so.

David Evennett: rose—

John Hutton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then make some progress.

David Evennett: I am listening carefully to what the Secretary of State is saying. My constituents in suburbia believe that decisions have already been taken and that the consultation procedure is just a PR sham. What is his view on that?

John Hutton: The decision has been taken that the post office network needs to be reduced. The consultation is about the details of that in every local area and how it can be most sensibly dealt with. That is a decision of the Government, and that is why the Post Office is now conducting the consultation.

Gerald Howarth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) says, there is a widespread view that this whole consultation process is a complete farce and a sham. What advice should I give to the postmaster at the Minley estate in Farnborough in my constituency? The Post Office says that the footfall in his branch is 591, yet he has conducted a survey that shows a 50 per cent. increase, without encouraging people to come in to make up the numbers. Is the Secretary of State saying that this consultation is going to make no difference whatsoever or that the Government are going to listen and look again at the figures, because this will apply to constituencies across the country, not only in rural areas, but in urban areas?

John Hutton: I would regard it as the duty of the Post Office to look seriously at arguments such as the hon. Gentleman's. If there is evidence that the figures are wrong or inaccurate, there is an opportunity in the consultation process—this is why it is happening—to make those arguments and for those representations to be taken into account. Postwatch is there to ensure, as a neutral umpire, that the process is being undertaken fairly.  [ Interruption. ] Hon. Gentlemen who are scoffing at Postwatch need to be very clear about what lies behind that scoffing. Postwatch is a neutral, independent observer. If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), whom I heard scoffing—I do not think he would deny that it was him—would like to give the House evidence to suggest that Postwatch is in any way acting unfairly or improperly, I would like to see it now.

Mark Francois: Is it true that Postwatch is being abolished?

John Hutton: Postwatch is going to form part of a new, invigorated national consumer council.  [ Laughter. ] Let me remind the hon. Member for Rayleigh, in case he has forgotten, that his Front Benchers have supported that policy. I do not understand the mirth that he is concocting; it is nothing other than a concoction. This debate does not need ridiculous rhetoric and phoney arguments of the type that he is putting forward. We should have a debate about the reality, not the bogus truth and distortions that he and others are bringing to this debate.

Several hon. Members: rose —

John Hutton: I will give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and then make progress.

Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is genuine concern about the validity of the consultation process? The  Southern Daily Echo is a politically impartial newspaper but nevertheless felt it necessary to publish a leader entitled "Post Office plan was a farce from the beginning", pointing out:
	"In many ways it would have been better if those in authority had simply announced their targets and then closed the book. All that this exercise has achieved is to deepen the anger amongst so many communities who now feel doubly cheated over this issue."
	One of the MPs whom the article quoted in support of that view was the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the Secretary of State's Cabinet colleague, who is protesting about the ridiculous closure of a post office in his constituency, where the alternative, as he points out, is at the top of the steepest hill in that constituency.

John Hutton: I am sure that there is such a thing as a genuinely independent newspaper. I personally have not read one, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has found one. I do not think that his argument is the same as that of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—that we should have just closed the post offices without any consultation. Today's argument is about the consultation process.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

John Hutton: I am not going to give way for the moment.
	I accept, of course, that people have expressed criticism of the consultation process, and they are perfectly entitled to do that, but my job is to try to ensure—we have tried very hard to do this—that people have the opportunity to pose a counter-argument. However, we have made the decision, which I am inviting the House to support, that the post office network will need to reduce in size. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has acknowledged that there needs to be a reduced network; the question for us today is how we can best manage that.

James Paice: rose—

John Hutton: I am not going to give way for the moment.

James Paice: rose—

John Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise the same point, then I have already dealt with it, although he might not like the way that I did so. If he has a different point, we will come to that later.

Anne Snelgrove: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

James Paice: rose—

John Hutton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I really would like to make progress. So far, I have got to page one of my speech. I do not want to intimidate the House, but I have 28 pages left to deliver.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, albeit with reluctance. The serious point is that the consultation concerns which post offices to close, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) made the crucial point that if, as a result of consultation, local pressure and new figures, it is decided not to close a post office, the policy that the Secretary of State is pursuing means that somewhere that is not on the original hit list will go on it. Will he explain to the House how that can be justified, and how the notion of the consultation being genuine can be correct if we are talking about such a trade-off? If it is possible to prove that a specific post office has a justified future and is viable, surely that should be the end of the matter.

John Hutton: I accept that that is an important point. I was going to deal with it later, but I shall try to deal with it now. The criticism that the hon. Gentleman has made of the one-for-one rule is not true. We argued that up to 2,500 sub-post offices need to close, but we have never said that precisely 2,500 post offices must close.

Mark Francois: That is what they are telling us.

John Hutton: No, that is not what the Post Office is saying. Let me try to deal with the point by referring to what is actually happening: 14 area plans have been signed off for closure and in six of those areas, there was no one-for-one replacement requirement, but in the other eight there was. That is the point that I am trying to argue. There is no absolute rule of one in, one out; that is not how the Post Office is seeking to deal with the issue.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. I share concerns about the consultation process, but does he share my anger about the fact that Tory-controlled Swindon borough council has not taken part in the consultation exercise, and did not attend any of the meetings held by Postwatch or the Post Office? The Conservatives in Swindon are now jumping on the bandwagon, but have made no representations to the Post Office or to Postwatch about the closures in my constituency.

John Hutton: I am surprised that that is the case, given the arguments that the Conservative party has been trying to deploy in this debate. It is obviously for Conservative councillors in my hon. Friend's constituency to explain themselves. In this place, Conservatives foam at the mouth about the injustice of post office closures, but when they are asked to contribute to the debate on how we can sustain the post office network, they make no contribution at all.

James Brokenshire: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. If he will allow me, I would like to make progress with my speech. I have been speaking for 20 minutes and, as I said, I am still on page one.
	It is precisely because we want to support the network, and ensure that it can continue to play the role we want it to, that the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, are investing unprecedented resources in the post office network. The sum of £1.7 billion was referred to, and it is true that that is going in until 2011, including a new annual subsidy of £150 million a year, which will help to keep open thousands of non-commercial branches that it would be impossible to sustain were it not for this intervention.
	It is worth reminding ourselves—the facts can sometimes be difficult and uncomfortable—that no Government funding or subsidy was provided at all during the period from 1979 to 1997, a period in which 3,500 sub-post offices closed. No effort was made by Conservative Ministers at any time in those 18 years to keep those sub-post offices open. Believe it or not, there are still a few hon. Gentlemen here who were Members in the House at that time, and we should hear from them at some point about the attitude they took in their constituencies when those sub-post offices were closing.

Alan Duncan: May I cite to the Secretary of State some figures pertinent to what he just said? From 1993 to 1994, the Post Office was in profit by £25 million; from 1995 to 1996, it was in profit by £35 million; and in 1996-97, it was in profit by £34 million. It was only with the arrival of his Government—this was not, I am sure, cause and effect—that it plunged into deficit.

John Hutton: I am not disputing the hon. Gentleman's figures about profit, but that is not the argument. The argument is that 3,500 sub-post offices closed and the Conservative Government made no effort to keep any of them open. If he wants to contest that fact, let him come back to the Dispatch Box and describe the actions— they always speak louder than words—that the Conservative Government took to keep the network at its existing size. They took no such action.
	One other rather inconvenient truth for the hon. Gentleman is that the use of the internet poses the greatest challenge to the post office network. Every month, 1 million people renew their car tax licences online. They used to do that in sub-post offices—that is true. It was certainly true in the 1980s and the 1990s, because we did not have the internet.

Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hutton: No, I will not.
	Let us be clear about this, because we need to hear it from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. Is his argument that he would go back to a time when people could not renew their tax discs online?

Alan Duncan: indicated dissent.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head because we know that is what he is going to say. But that is why post offices have lost so much business. It is complete pie in the sky— [ Interruption. ] He knows that. I do not remember him making that argument in his speech.

Russell Brown: Post Office Ltd needs to compete for business. All that the Conservatives are saying is that they would delay the closure of 2,500 post offices, and all that would do is delay the inevitable. Prices would be dragged down in bidding for competition and business, and sub-postmasters and postmistresses would be paid less for transactions. It would destabilise the whole system.

John Hutton: I agree. I do not think that postponing a difficult decision is ever the right thing to do, but that now seems to be the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: No, I will not give way for a while now.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked why the Post Office imposes restrictions on what sub-post offices can do and went through a long list of them, as did one of his hon. Friends. He might be interested to hear what Mr. Thomson, general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, said during the recent Select Committee inquiry in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. He was asked why all these unreasonable restrictions were in place, and he said:
	"I make it absolutely clear, there are no restrictions on what existing sub-postmasters can do."
	We have dealt with that canard as well. If the Post Office operated—[Hon. Members: "Wrong quote."] It is not the wrong quote; it was made only a few weeks ago.  [ Interruption. ] It is entirely relevant because the hon. Gentleman argued that, if all the unreasonable restrictions could be lifted, somehow all these businesses could suddenly move from making losses to making profits. That is exactly the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is entirely wrong.

Alan Duncan: The Secretary of State has got this completely wrapped around his neck. Our complaint is about what the remaining shop is or is not allowed to do, not about what current post offices are allowed to do.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman made specific reference to the lottery as well. It is important to recognise what the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters had to say on that, too. He said that choices had been put in the way of existing sub-postmasters and went through the four main ones, but on the lottery he said:
	"If you think about it, if a sub-postmaster, for example, was earning £5,000 a year on the Lottery commission and he just wanted to move that Lottery to the retail side"—
	on which there is no restriction—
	"so he is going to keep it, why would the Government possibly want to use taxpayers' money to give someone compensation for something they are continuing to do?"
	That makes absolutely no sense.

Richard Benyon: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am going to make progress.
	If the Post Office operated on a purely commercial basis, with no external subsidy, it is estimated that up to four times as many branches would have to stop trading. However, we do not believe that the Post Office should be operated purely as a commercial service. That is why we have committed such a large public subsidy and why we are working with Post Office Ltd to secure a more stable network for the future. George Thomson, general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, also recognised that. He said recently that,
	"although regrettable"—
	and it is regrettable—
	"we believe that these closures are necessary to ensure the remaining post offices are able to thrive in the future."
	We believe that changes are necessary, but we also aim to give people new reasons to use the Post Office and provide a range of services that make it a local provider of choice.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: No.
	Let us remember that, even after the closure programme is over, the Post Office will still have a bigger network than all the banks put together. It will be some three times bigger than the top five supermarket chains combined. It will still have an unparalleled reach into every community—every corner of the UK—and continue to fill an important social and economic role through the post offices in the urban and rural communities that they serve.
	The Post Office has been rising to the challenge of innovation and developing new products, contrary to what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said. For example, it is the biggest provider of foreign exchange in the country and a major provider of car insurance. It has launched a new broadband service in partnership with British Telecom, whereby people can pay in cash if they want. It is introducing some 4,000 free-to-use cash machines, often in the most deprived areas.

David Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: Not for the moment.
	The Post Office has begun to exploit the great potential offered by internet shopping and mail order through the Local Collect service, which allows customers to collect deliveries at their local post office. It has introduced a new secure Christmas pre-payment scheme for savers from this Christmas onwards. The Post Office must travel that road of new services and new reasons to go to post offices, all built on a brand that people can genuinely trust.
	The network must also fulfil its customers' modern-day demands. That is the basis for the decisions that we have made, after careful consideration, about the best way of sustaining a substantial network of sub-post offices. It will remain a substantial network in the light of the significant changes in the way in which the public—our constituents—use those services.
	The current difficulties that the post office network faces have rightly been the subject of many debates. It is undeniable—no one has sought to dispute the facts, because they cannot—that the Post Office made losses of approximately £3.5 million a week, every week, last year, with 4 million fewer people a week visiting post offices compared with just two years ago. That is a drop of nearly 20 per cent. in customers—again, our constituents—who use sub-post offices.
	No undertaking could afford to ignore the consequences of changes of that magnitude. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today, 800 post offices have fewer than 16 customers a week, and each transaction costs the taxpayer—all of us—£17 in public subsidy. In urban areas, some 1,000 sub-post offices compete for business with at least six other post offices within a mile of them. That is happening at a time when the number of customers is falling.  [Interruption.] Opposition Members say from a sedentary position that we are keeping some of those sub-post offices open. We are—that is the precise point of the access criteria and the subsidy. We recognise the social role of post offices and we have to strike the right balance.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is asking why we are not closing them—

Alan Duncan: No, I am not.

John Hutton: Apparently, he is not saying that, though he was hinting at it. The point of our actions is to keep those sub-post offices open, despite the losses that they are making, to ensure that his constituents and rural areas get a proper service.  [Interruption.] He says that we should stop going on about the losses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interjections from sedentary positions make it difficult, not only for the House to know what is happening, but, more particularly, for the  Official Report to understand what is going on. If hon. Members want to intervene, it would be helpful if they stood up and did it in the normal way.

John Hutton: I accept the admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is my fault for responding to the childish observations of Opposition Front Benchers.

Sarah Teather: Let me take the Secretary of State back to his comments about the parcel collection service. Does he accept that decoupling Royal Mail from the Post Office would allow the Post Office to work with competitors and increase and expand the capacity for that, which could provide a new revenue stream for the Post Office?

John Hutton: As the hon. Lady knows, the regulator has already made such a proposal, which will have to be carefully considered. It is a matter for the review that we have set up under Richard Hooper, who will examine all the consequences of proposals that people have made. However, today is not the time to deal with that specific proposal. The innovation that is under way in the Post Office confirms that we should support it in its pursuit of new business. We are doing that in parallel with the other difficult decisions that must be made now if we want the network to have a sustainable future. With great respect to the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat party, when one has been out of government for 100 years, one can make a series of decisions that have no consequences. Someone else will always pay for them and, worse, because we are considering Liberal Democrat economics, one can spend the same pound several times over. I have great respect for the hon. Lady but, in the real world, those are not genuine choices that Governments can make.

Nicholas Winterton: I am one of those who was here when the Conservative party was in government. I want to ask two questions. First, how many sub-post office closures during that period were voluntary, in that the postmaster or postmistress retired and no one could be found to replace them? I do not know whether the Secretary of State has that figure, but it is relevant if he levels complaints about the Conservatives when they were in office. Secondly, I have just renewed my passport and driving licence at a post office in the Palace of Westminster. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the proposals— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough of an intervention. The Secretary of State has indicated that he wants to make progress. Many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. I appreciate that it is important to debate such matters but, unless we have fewer interventions or more progress, many hon. Members will not catch my eye and will be disappointed.

Nicholas Winterton: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider the proposition by Essex county council and other organisations to save post offices, because they believe that they can put money in, which will enable the post offices to stay open?

John Hutton: Yes, I want the Post Office to consider the proposal from Essex county council seriously. I have made that clear, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs. It is also clear and transparent in the letter to which I referred earlier. The letter is in the Library and the hon. Gentleman can read it at his leisure.
	I, too, use the sub-post office here regularly. Indeed, I renewed my car tax here rather than online. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I share one thing in common: perhaps we are not the greatest internet users.

Several hon. Members: rose —

John Hutton: I must now take into account other Members' desire to contribute to the debate and I will make a little more progress.
	We are invited to support or reject the motion, which asks the Government to instruct the Post Office to suspend the closure programme. My strong view is that it is a cocktail of false hopes, flawed economics and opportunism of the highest order. That is especially true, given the record of previous Conservative Governments in office. Postponing those difficult decisions would be wrong. It would result in more uncertainty for those sub-postmasters who are ready to accept the compensation deal on offer and leave the network with much of its original investment intact. The proposals would also
	"threaten the stability of those offices which will make up the new 11,500-strong post office network".
	Those are not my words, but the views of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, and it is right that we should give them serious consideration.
	Postponing sensible decisions is rarely a sensible course of action to take. Additional resources—taxpayers' money—would need to be found. The Opposition have given no indication today or in the past of where those additional resources would come from. We can all conclude, therefore, that their proposal is another unfunded and uncosted spending commitment, which forms part of a growing list of unfunded and uncosted spending commitments.
	The network needs to change if it is to adapt to changing demand. We do not believe that it can continue as it is. If we fail to act now, I am afraid that matters will only get worse. The underlying fundamentals have to be confronted and addressed. That is what we are trying to do, in a way that supports the economic and social role of the network, while giving it a long-term sustainable platform on which to build for the future.

Rob Marris: I should like to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point. The difficulty with the Conservatives' motion is that it simply calls for a moratorium, because they do not have a policy. They are not fit for government and they do not want to take tough decisions. Some of them do not even seem to understand a sub-post office's measure of profitability or otherwise and look at it only through the eyes of the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. The Conservatives do not look at central costs—for IT, IT support, cash handling, delivery, security and so on—when assessing whether a post office is profitable. One cannot look at only one sub-post office, however; one must also look at how much it takes out of central financing. However, the Conservatives do not understand the financing, yet they claim that they are pro-business.

John Hutton: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. We have to be clear: all the costs that he referred to are met by the Post Office, not by the sub-postmasters, and it is entirely appropriate that we should take those costs into account.

Simon Burns: On the question of the Essex scheme, would the Secretary of State be prepared to try to persuade the Post Office briefly to delay the decommissioning of post offices, so that Essex has more time to put its scheme into place and ensure that it is a success?

John Hutton: I understand that the Post Office has already agreed to do that in some cases in Essex. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Post Office is open to a proper exploration of what Essex county council's proposal could look like and what it would mean. I want to discuss the Essex proposal in a minute, because it is an issue of genuine importance, not just in Essex, but for the future course of the consultations.

Edward Davey: rose—

Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Kali Mountford: rose—

John Hutton: No, I am not going to give way.
	A number of points have been made about the access criteria, and so on, which I should like briefly to deal with. The access criteria that we have set down will ensure for the first time—it is important that hon. Members appreciate that—that almost all the urban population of the UK, that is 95 per cent., will be within 1 mile of their nearest Post Office outlet and that 95 per cent. of the rural population will be within 3 miles. This is the first time that such a safeguard has been provided for vulnerable consumers throughout the UK, particularly in deprived urban areas and remote areas. The additional requirement for Post Office Ltd to take account of factors such as the availability of public transport, local demographics and the impact on local economies when developing its area plans means that the criteria are more robust and should help to ensure an accessible network.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on that very point. Will he warn people—especially people such as Nicola Turner, the Liberal Democrat councillor in my area—to be careful not simply to stick a pin in the map and simplistically say, "I'm putting a circle of three miles around each post office," before coming up with a figure for how many post offices will be closed? If we look at things in that way and do not look at the entire picture and at all the criteria, we will leave people feeling unnecessarily vulnerable and that their post offices will be closed, when that is entirely not the case.

John Hutton: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that she really has no reason to worry about the Liberal Democrats in her constituency. She should also know that it is not the Liberal Democrats who are designing the consultation in her area. However, I am sure that her points are entirely appropriate.
	There is a proper appeals process, as part of the consultation exercise that we have put in place, which has three stages. In the most difficult cases, the Royal Mail chairman, Allan Leighton, will review the issues and make the final decision.

Frank Dobson: Although I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend's views on the opportunistic activities of the Tories, may I tell him that the post office that serves the most deprived ward in my constituency is now threatened with closure? What a lot of local people find most disturbing is that when other closures were pushed through, during previous consultations, they were assured that things would be all right, because they could always go to the Crowndale road post office. However, that is the one that it is proposed for closure.

John Hutton: Obviously I do not know the precise details of the consultation in my right hon. Friend's constituency, but I urge him—I am sure he will not need urging from me—to make those arguments to the Post Office, because they are perfectly credible and strong arguments. As I have said, the Post Office is under an obligation to take them into account and to justify the proposals that it is making.
	There is one other important factor that we should all try to reflect on in this debate, as we come to making up our minds about which way to cast our votes. In the 23 area plans that have been published to date, on average, 90 per cent. of customers will see no change to the post office that they currently use and 99 per cent. will either see no change at all or be within one mile by road of an alternative branch. That is the reality of what we propose. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will take that into consideration.
	I want to turn briefly to Essex county council, which has been raised on a number of occasions. Some hon. Members have already raised the interest of local authorities in taking over the services provided by some existing sub-post offices, and I am sure that others will raise it later. Where a local authority makes serious proposals to maintain a service where branches are scheduled for closure, I would encourage Post Office Ltd fully to explore all those avenues.
	It is clear that Post Office Ltd will want to ensure that all relevant costs are covered—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made an important intervention on that point—that there is a commitment for several years and that there will not be a damaging impact on post offices in the area that are not currently scheduled for closure. Councils will need to account to local taxpayers for expenditure on a network that is currently loss making. Ultimately, it is for Post Office Ltd and any local authority to discuss and agree the details of those arrangements, and to ensure that those rules are compatible with EU rules on state aid.
	As I have said, I have today written to Post Office Ltd, the Local Government Association and the National Federation of SubPostmasters to set out the Government's position. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library.

John Baron: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

John Hutton: I have already given way to hon. Gentleman once on this point. I now intend to conclude my remarks.
	If there is a way forward that might allow more sub-post offices to remain open, while retaining a sustainable network, I am sure that the Post Office will want to look closely at how any such proposals could work in practice.
	There is much more that I could say; fortunately for many hon. Members, they will not have to hear me say it. There are many arguments that I could deploy if I had the right amount of time. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand what we are trying to do and the way we are setting about doing it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I appreciate and understand the concerns that have been raised today. All of us understand the importance of such issues. Post office closures have been happening for many years and, as we know, thousands closed under the previous Conservative Government. However, what we have tried to do in the current process is manage the reduction in the size of the network, ensure reasonable access criteria for our constituents, introduce new access services in some areas and give Post Office Ltd some financial certainty, which it desperately needs.
	We have made a significant financial investment in the future of the network, to allow it to adapt to the changing society that it seeks to serve. I believe that it can do so. Our responsibility is to ensure that the network has a sustainable future. For this to happen, there needs to be change. I do not believe that there is any serious, credible alternative option on the table today, and the Opposition have certainly not presented one.
	For all those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to support the Government's amendment and to reject the cynical opportunism that is so manifestly reflected in the motion that has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition.

Sarah Teather: The Chamber is full of hon. Members hoping to make speeches about the closure of their local post office, which is why the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) promised to be brief. I am afraid that he failed in that. Being a short speaker is something that he and I normally have in common. I shall endeavour to be shorter.
	I doubt that any other issue unifies communities across the country more than that of post office closures, regardless of whether it is in a rural or an urban constituency, whether the area is deprived or wealthy, or whether those affected are young or old. This is, without doubt, one of the most potent political issues of the day. The Liberal Democrats have always been opposed to the Government's closure project, which is euphemistically called the "network change programme". However, we are the only party here that has a policy to stop it. I was delighted to read that the Conservatives recognised our strength on this issue. I have here the Conservative campaign manual; I think it is called "Localiser". The Conservatives warn their candidates, in a big blue bubble, that "the Liberal Democrats campaign extensively on the issue of post office closures. If a post office is threatened with closure in your area it is vital that you quickly mount your own campaign before the Liberal Democrats commandeer the issue."

Simon Burns: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Teather: Let me get started.
	I am sorry that the Conservatives feel we have commandeered the issue, but I find it much easier to campaign on something when we have a policy on it. I would strongly recommend that the Conservatives get one. During this debate, I will have some suggestions for them on saving post offices.

Simon Burns: From my experience, the only campaigning that the Liberal Democrats did when Chelmsford was facing post office closures was to wait until the sitting MP had done all the work—having meetings with the Post Office, writing and lobbying—then to get their clipboards out and do a high-profile collection of names. That was all.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman sounds as though he is complaining about the Liberal Democrats commandeering the issue. Of course, it would also help if the Conservatives did not have a record of closing post offices when they were in government. During their final term in office, they closed the equivalent of— [ Interruption. ] Well, I am sure we can indulge hon. Members if they would like us to. During their final term in office, they closed the equivalent of four post offices a week. That amounted to 3,500 during their time in office. However, we have also seen crocodile tears from Labour Ministers and MPs on this issue. I find it difficult to listen to them when they say they are not opposed to the network change programme in principle and that they are opposed only to the closures in their own backyard. More often, they say that the problem is not the total number of closures but the flaws in the consultation process for a particular post office in a particular town.

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, no doubt so that he can complain about a post office closure in his own area.

Mark Hendrick: No, I do not want to complain. I just want to bring the hon. Lady back to the point about the Liberal Democrats commandeering an issue. Does that include having photographs of Liberal Democrat candidates outside a post office that they said was earmarked for closure, when in fact there was no such plan? That is what happened in the Tulketh by-election in my constituency.

Sarah Teather: I was about to say that I do not have any faith that the Government have a sustainable plan for the post office network. My fear is that this will not be the end of the post office closures; indeed, it might just be the beginning.

Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend will have noticed, as I did, that the Secretary of State was unwilling to give way to Liberal Democrat Members, perhaps because he knows that we have a policy on this issue. Does she agree that most people are concerned that this is not a closure policy but a process of attrition? The Secretary of State himself acknowledged that, after the last closure programme, the business of the Post Office contracted so sharply that we had to have another closure programme. What guarantee is there that this is not the start of an endless process?

Sarah Teather: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The truth is that the Government are presiding over the managed decline of our post office network. They are choosing to do that because they totally fail to understand the social value of our post offices to the 2 million vulnerable individuals who do not have bank accounts, for example. Those people rely on the post offices to access their benefits. The Government also fail to understand the role of the post office as a social hub for the community, or the economic value of the post office to the surrounding economy.
	Those of us who have had post offices closed in our communities know that the death of the post office often spells the end for the shop in which it has been housed. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, too, mentioned that. The death of the main shop on a street can often spell the end for the nearby parade of shops as well. In Brent, in my constituency, the post offices are just part of a long line of services facing the chop. The process started with the health centres, as the primary care trusts struggled to scale in their debts. Then police station closures were announced, followed by the closure of job centres. There is a sense that Labour is shutting up shop in our community.

Michael Jabez Foster: How would the hon. Lady's list of proper concerns square with the Lib Dems' proposal to privatise the Post Office and, presumably, keep just the profitable ones, of which there are only about 4,000?

Sarah Teather: We are not proposing to privatise the Post Office. We are proposing to part-privatise Royal Mail, and to keep the Post Office in the public sector because it has social value.

Geraldine Smith: rose—

Sarah Teather: I will give way again in a moment.
	These closures will rip the heart out of the community. They are the places that people value for getting face-to-face advice, with centres on the high street. They provide vital local services. It is as though Labour is shutting up shop in the very heart of our communities. It is not only vulnerable individuals who are affected by post office closures; they also have a huge impact on small businesses, especially those in which people work from home as they often rely on their post office for posting parcels. When I campaign on this issue, I am struck by the fact that it is often young people who are the first to sign a petition. Perhaps that is understandable when we realise that 11 per cent. of all business transacted in post offices comes from small businesses.
	The New Economics Foundation carried out some research into what happens when a post office is closed in an urban area. It estimated that the closure of such a post office would lead to a loss of about £270,000 to the local economy. Similarly, in rural economies, it is estimated that every £1 of subsidy makes between £2 and £4 for the local economy.

Julia Goldsworthy: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that £6 of every £10 withdrawn from a post office—either from a Post Office card account or by people using the post office to access their bank services—will be spent in the local economy. That money will be spent elsewhere, and lost to the local economy, if the post office closes.

Sarah Teather: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I tried to make the point earlier about footfall and the local parade of shops. When we lose the post office, we often lose all the shops in the area.

Geraldine Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware of the relationship between Royal Mail and the Post Office? If Royal Mail were part-privatised, that would put the universal service obligation in jeopardy and rural communities would suffer. People would end up having to go to collect their mail; it would not even be delivered to their door.

Sarah Teather: That is not true at all. I am sure that the Secretary of State will tell everyone that that is not the case when he finally adopts our policy at the end of the review.

Alan Duncan: The real problem with the hon. Lady's policy is that she wants to get a lump of money from a one-off part-privatisation in order to subsidise a constant flow of need. It is not possible to finance such a flow from a stock of money without having an end point. Her proposal is therefore economically innumerate.

Sarah Teather: We want to finance a lump sum in order to modernise the network and to allow investment in infrastructure, for example. We also propose de-coupling Royal Mail from the Post Office, as I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, to allow it to work with Royal Mail's competitors and bring in a new revenue stream. We are also arguing for extra revenue streams, just as the hon. Gentleman is doing. What he lacks, however, is any kind of policy for investment in upgrading the network. I cannot see how he can save 2,500 post offices—or even a little fewer, as I am not quite sure what exactly he claims to be saving—without that further investment. We think we can do that, but we do not think we can do any more than that, so I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can seriously think he can save all these post offices without any kind of investment in them. They need that to ensure that they can compete on the high street.

Andrew Murrison: Does the hon. Lady believe that the number of post offices we have now is about right and that they are based in approximately the right place? If not, what is her assessment of how many more post offices we would have in this ideal Liberal Democrat world? How would she determine where they should be and, more importantly, how would she pay for them?

Sarah Teather: I just made a point about investing in the capital and other infrastructure in post offices. It is a bit rich of the hon. Gentleman to be asking me how many post offices there should be in a local area, when he cannot even save the ones that he is proposing to save.  [Interruption.] At least we have a policy for investment in the network.

Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do we have a policy for investing some capital at the beginning, but we support the idea that another process for supporting local post offices will be available when the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 comes into force? If, however, the consultation process allowed MPs and the public to know the commercial facts—details of profits and losses—in many cases we would be able to win the argument, but the Post Office never allows us to have the facts that would allow a proper consultation. It keeps moving the goalposts and playing a game with mirrors, so that consultation is a sham.

Sarah Teather: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the consultation process, which has caused more anger among hon. Members and, indeed, members of the public, than almost anything else—

Bob Spink: rose—

Annette Brooke: rose—

Sarah Teather: I shall give way in a few moments when I have finished what I am saying. There is a huge sense of frustration that the Post Office is allowing only six weeks, which is not long enough for any community organisations to work together to produce a bid to save post offices—either with or without the Sustainable Communities Bill 2007. It is difficult for councils to intervene and almost impossible for them to intervene earlier because they do not know whether the post offices they wish to work with are going to be closed later under the network change programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, the goalposts are constantly moving.

Annette Brooke: rose—

Bob Spink: rose—

Sarah Teather: I shall give way to my hon. Friend first and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Annette Brooke: My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of consultation. Does she share with me the concerns raised by Purbeck community partnership about the proposal to start the consultation on the network change programme on 15 July and for it to carry on for seven weeks? How can individuals be engaged when, for example, the parish and town councils may not even meet during that period? Surely the Government have some responsibility to arrange proper consultation.

Sarah Teather: It is a common complaint when consultations are arranged over a holiday period as it is difficult for community groups and political representatives to work with people in the community to stop these proposals.
	I will give way now to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). Now that he has become independent, I hope that he will support our policies.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is at least trying to come forward with some constructive proposals; I welcome that, as we need them. Does she regret the fact, however, that her party did not oppose the EU regulations that prevented the Government from subsidising post offices and thereby keeping them open? It is those EU regulations that have forced the Government to go down the closure route.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman may be independent, but he is still a Conservative, as he can get Europe into almost anything! There is no evidence that Europe is stopping us subsidising the post office network.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Sarah Teather: Let me make some progress, as I promised to be a brief speaker and I am failing miserably so far.
	All this grief and all this political damage are being caused for what is actually a pretty measly amount of money that the Government are saving—just £45 million. We have to ask whether it really will be a saving when everything else has been taken into account. I provided some figures a few moments ago on how much the closure of post offices costs the local economy in urban areas—about £277,000—but that probably equates to the best part of £50,000 in VAT lost to the Treasury. If we add in other costs to individuals, such as being more isolated or the difficulty of picking up benefits, and if we also add in the cost to the community of losing its high street, and then the environmental impacts of travelling further, probably by car, to access the local post office, we have to ask what we are left with. After all, £45 million is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of Government Budgets. We also have to remember that Royal Mail awarded its own board and chief executive more than £7 million in pay and bonuses last year, and well over £5 million in bonuses and benefits alone.
	As one of my hon. Friends asked earlier, is there really any evidence that the closure programme will actually deliver the increased footfall to make the remaining post offices, which the Government are relying on, profitable? Where is the evidence to suggest that it will not simply cause people to change their behaviour and do business in another way? What of the overall cost to the Royal Mail Group when businesses decide to use a competitor?

Mark Francois: Quite a few references have already been made to the innovative proposals from Conservative-controlled Essex county council to try to ensure that at least a number of the post offices under threat in the county remain open. Does the hon. Lady support in principle that brave attempt by Essex county council, or not?

Sarah Teather: What we want is a sustainable programme, but it is obviously for local councils to decide what they do. Of course the letter placed in the Library by the Secretary of State makes the point that the Government will stop the £150 million subsidy, so councils would then be required to put the extra money in from council tax payers. It is a difficult decision for councils; they need to know that the Government have a long-term plan to ensure sustainability. There are some good proposals for councils to work with the Post Office, but I really want something that is sustainable and not just about central Government shifting the blame and the responsibility on to local government, which causes local councils to pick up the costs without any kind of benefit.
	The trouble is, as I have already said, that the Government have no long-term plan to save the network. The access criteria they have devised with the Post Office would be met if we had just 7,000 post offices, which raises the spectre of further closures. Of course, the £1.7 billion that the Government boast about investing over five years already includes the £150 million a year that they had already committed—£750 million overall—and the redundancy package for sub-postmasters, which is £70 million plus some extra for central changes, taking it perhaps to £100 million. The Government have not provided the exact figures on that. By the time we have added that and taken into account general losses that the Post Office incurs each week, it is hard to see how much money would be left for real investment to modernise the Post Office.
	Additionally, post offices are steadily having every revenue option they have taken away from them, leaving the network with huge uncertainty over the future of the Post Office card account, for example. That is why we must clearly decouple Royal Mail from the post office network, to allow it to develop other business revenues with competitors. I have already mentioned having a parcel depot for other mail delivery companies. There would be all sorts of other options, but not until the brave step of uncoupling Royal Mail from the Post Office has been taken. We urgently need investment in the network. That is why we propose to part-privatise Royal Mail, raising about £2 billion for the Government to invest in upgrading the post office network. Crown post offices, in particular, desperately need investment to allow them to compete on the high street. They need refurbishment and IT investment, and their staff need extra training.

Edward Davey: Did my hon. Friend notice that when the Secretary of State was trying to suggest that the closures were down to the internet and people not going to post offices, he failed to mention that one of the reasons why people are not going to post offices is that the Government have closed so many of them and another is the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to bully hundreds of thousands of pensioners to take their pensions into bank accounts, in tandem with the decision of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to take the business of TV licences away from post offices? Is not the real truth that post office closures have been brought about by the Government and are not the fault of the public?

Sarah Teather: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is as if the Government were making a deliberate attempt to close post offices down.

Christopher Huhne: I am following the case that my hon. Friend is making, particularly in respect of the costs to the Government. It seems to me that one cost to the Treasury and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has not been estimated at all—the cost of the closure of other parts of businesses that ineluctably fail as well when the Post Office is removed. I refer to associated VAT costs, for example, which is direct revenue lost to the Government. Following a sham consultation, four post offices in my constituency were closed despite a massive protest and more than 1,000 people signing a petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that this so-called consultation has been a fraudulent exercise?

Sarah Teather: I agree entirely. There are many hidden costs of which the Government have taken no account. We have to ask whether saving £45 million is worth all this grief, and whether the Treasury is really saving any money in the long term.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Teather: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I want to finish my speech, as I know that many other Members want to speak.
	We must think about alternative long-term revenue streams for the Post Office. An obvious route that has not been discussed so far is development of the Post Office card account. About five years ago, the Government charged banks with making basic bank accounts available to those who needed them, but it simply has not worked. The best part of 2 million people still do not have access to an account, and the increase in basic bank accounts appears to have stalled. It is obvious from the take-up of the Post Office card account that it has been far more popular than the offers of basic bank accounts. It is also obvious that people want to use their post offices to gain access to their accounts and that some banks have been reluctant to allow them to do so. HSBC, HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example, still do not allow people to use post offices for that purpose.
	The problem is that there really is not anything in it for banks to offer basic bank accounts to people who are never going to earn very much, and who want to be dealt with face to face. The last thing that the commercial banks want are people who go into branches. They want people who bank by phone and by internet, whereas the Post Office needs footfall. Those are two very different needs.
	It is time that the Government gave banks a choice. They should either force them to make their services available through the Post Office so that all can gain access to their basic bank accounts through the network, or give up on banks and develop the Post Office card account into a basic bank account. In either event, we need a universal service obligation on access to a bank account, and the Post Office should play a role in providing it. That could offer a very fruitful revenue stream.
	We oppose the closure programme because it will have a devastating and permanent effect on our communities, but petitions alone will not save the network. We need a serious plan of investment— [Interruption]—a serious plan of investment, which the Conservative party— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Sarah Teather: We need a serious plan of investment, which the Conservative party does not have—but neither do the Government, and I hope that they will adopt our policy following the review.

Richard Burden: Let me begin by explaining some of the background to my interest in this issue. I was a member of the Trade and Industry Committee during the last Parliament, and was involved in the reports that first pressed Post Office Ltd to consider area plans rather than merely deciding where they wanted to change the network—to look at the broader picture, rather than at individual post offices in isolation—and to examine opportunities for post offices to win new business, as well as the constraints imposed by changing patterns of customer behaviour. When Post Office Ltd adopted the principle of area plans, I was a member of the Committee—again, the Trade and Industry Committee—which suggested that its approach to them should be rather different, and that it should change its methodology.
	The review in Birmingham has not happened yet—it is scheduled for June—but when the urban reinvention programme in my constituency was launched in 2004, I submitted to Post Office Ltd a detailed analysis of the problems with its methodology and some of its conclusions. Along with an excellent campaign by local people, that managed to save two of the five post offices that were slated for closure. Last year I submitted evidence to the Department when it was drawing up the framework that led to the network change programme.
	I have said all that because the discussions that have taken place, and the reports from the Trade and Industry Committee and its successor, have concerned serious questions that arise when we try to grapple with the issue of how to maintain the viable post office network that is so important to our constituents at a time of massively shifting patterns in customer behaviour and preferences. Such changes will affect the number of people who use post offices and the frequency with which they do so irrespective of the number of post offices, and irrespective of Government policies.
	We must ask how much more people use phone lines than they did some years ago—and, in particular, how much they use the internet and other technologies—to gain access to services to which, in some cases, they could have had no access 10 or 15 years ago. We must also ask to what extent they seek to gain access to services that have hitherto been provided by post offices, not simply via technology but via technology outside normal working hours. There are no easy or simple answers to those serious questions.
	I do not suggest that Post Office Ltd gets everything right all the time, or even much of the time. The reports that I have mentioned and the campaigns in which I have been involved convince me that there is an awful lot that it needs to learn about how to go about these programmes, and I expect to cross swords with it again in June. I feel, however, that what does the greatest disservice to our constituents is trying to pretend that the issues are simple, or—when it comes to the practical aspects of the campaign—reducing the argument to whether people are for or against post office closures in general. That was not the approach of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), but I shall be interested to see what happens when the debate is reported outside and represented in leaflets. I think that simplicity will find its way straight back in at that point, and that at least one Opposition party—maybe two, maybe more—will try to present the debate and Members' votes in a way that will reduce it to something simplistic and utterly meaningless.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) nods, so my prediction is probably correct. I hope I am wrong, but I have to say that the Conservative party has form in this regard. Even when I was helping to question the closures in my constituency in 2004, in some cases successfully, leaflets were appearing from the Conservatives claiming that I was supporting the very closures that we managed to beat off. One Conservative leaflet doctored  Hansard to back up its claims, which earned the party and the councillor involved a rebuke from Mr. Speaker when it was reported to the House.
	We have seen similar action on this occasion. Opposition politicians have claimed that for Ministers to establish a framework for consultation and then use their positions as local Members of Parliament representing their constituents to argue within that framework and take up issues of local concern is somehow illegitimate. That does their constituents a disservice, and reduces the debate to trivia.

Martin Salter: My hon. Friend has much joy to look forward to when the Conservatives get their teeth into the issue in his constituency, but I hope he does not find that his local Conservatives are as mad as mine. They jumped the gun before the network change programme was announced, and started to campaign to save three post offices that were not even in the frame for closure. All they have managed to do is frighten local pensioners. I hope that that does not happen in Birmingham, Northfield.

Richard Burden: Let us hope not, but I am not holding my breath. This is a serious issue, and I hope that Opposition Members will think about doing the right thing by their constituents and mine, and telling the truth about it.
	Turning to the situation in Birmingham, and the proposals that are likely to be published in June, I am pleased that criticisms that we made in the Select Committee some years ago have, in theory, been addressed by the Post Office in the access criteria that it has laid down. I say "in theory", because the evidence is that they have not always been followed through in practice, which is something that Post Office Ltd must address. As a local MP I will only know what the proposals are, and whether there is a problem with the methodology, towards the end of the pre-consultation phase and just before the formal consultation. If and when proposals are produced, and if there is consensus about the methodology and confidence in the way in which Post Office Ltd has drawn up its plan, even if there is disagreement about its substance, the six-week consultation is probably not too bad. In fact, the National Federation of SubPostmasters says that six weeks is probably okay, if the aim is to minimise the period of sub-postmasters' uncertainty. However, problems will arise if there is not consensus about the methodology and people end up having to argue simultaneously about the methodology and the proposals themselves during that same six-week period. My message to Post Office Ltd is that it should be open with stakeholders at an earlier stage, and I do not think that that contradicts the framework that it has laid down. I do not buy all its arguments about commercial confidentiality, and I certainly do not think that they should take precedence over letting the public know the things that they need to know.
	Finally, as we approach the publication of proposals on Birmingham, access criteria will apply, as elsewhere, guaranteeing the maximum distances from post offices. That is important, and it is an improvement on existing measures. The problem that we face in Birmingham, however, does not relate to distance. Birmingham's neighbourhoods are often compact in size, but they are far from compact in population numbers. There is an average of 377.2 people—I do not know where the 0.2 comes from—per square kilometre in England. In Birmingham, the average is 3,649 people per square kilometre. Under the current post office provision, that is 7,088 residents per post office, which has resulted in unacceptable queues in a number of places in my constituency. The people queuing outside in the rain are often old, frail and vulnerable, and if Post Office Ltd further reduces the number of post offices without taking into account population density figures as well as distance, those queues will lengthen. That will hit customers even more, and it will hit the very trade that Post Office Ltd and the Government are trying to protect.
	I hope that Post Office Ltd will look at that, and that Ministers will have another word with it about taking those things into account. The framework and the access criteria do not need to change. They are not exhaustive, but they are a guide to what Post Office Ltd should take into account, and population density in urban areas is an important consideration. When Post Office Ltd draws up its plans for Birmingham, it should be open with stakeholders earlier, as there is nothing in the access criteria or the framework that prevents it from doing so. It must rethink the sequencing of involving Postwatch, local government, local MPs and the public. If there is a problem with the methodology, that will have consequences for the extent to which it sticks to the framework.

Barry Gardiner: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the effect on queuing in urban areas. Does he agree that part of the response should involve looking not only at the outlets but at the number of counters available?

Richard Burden: That is a very good point. Post Office Ltd has talked about investing in the network and upgrading it, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is not good enough for it just to say that it is going to invest—it has got to look at precisely those things, and a few more besides.

Justine Greening: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the criteria are meaningless, as this is a reverse engineering project, designed to close 2,500 post offices? I can tell him from my experience in my constituency that none of the criteria mean anything, as we are closing perfectly profitable post offices.

Richard Burden: The hon. Lady is running a number of things together, and she is wrong. If she is arguing that there should be no overall target figure—and I would love to be in that situation—that would have financial consequences. That is why I asked her hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton how much subsidy he proposed. He said different things in the course of his contribution: at one stage, he did not give any commitment at all, but at another, he thought the maximum of the subsidy should be that which the Government have provided. There are consequences that flow from that—there is a financial limit, as the Conservative party, too, has accepted—and we cannot avoid numbers. I do not think that the access criteria are meaningless. However, the way in which they are structured does not tackle all situations in all places, so Post Office Ltd needs to be more sensitive.

Justine Greening: rose—

Richard Burden: The hon. Lady has had a go, and as many other Members wish to speak, I shall now conclude.
	We must be open with stakeholders at an earlier stage, and approach the consultation in that spirit. When proposing change in Birmingham and other urban areas where the reviews have not yet taken place, we must look at population figures as well as distances. We must also bear it in mind that if at the end of the process queues lengthen and those that suffer from that are the old, the frail and the vulnerable, we will not have addressed the issues that we are trying to address. I make that appeal to Post Office Ltd, and I ask Ministers to make it to Post Office Ltd as well.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred on the question relating to the European defence equipment market and the European Defence Agency.
	The Ayes were 254 and the Noes were 194, so the Ayes have it.
	 [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Post Office Closures

Question again proposed.

James Paice: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. It was clear from the Secretary of State's response to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) that the Secretary of State does not have full control of what is going on. In answer to my question about the alleged one-for-one policy—that if one post office was saved another had to be added to the hit list—he said it was not happening, yet he then listed a number of areas where it clearly did happen, and a number of my hon. Friends have been openly told by Post Office management that that policy does exist.
	Some remarks made by Labour Members, including the Secretary of State, serve to underline the existence of a fundamental gulf between their approach and ours—and I am sorry to say that in this context the views of the Liberal Democrats are shaped in the same mould as those of the Government. There seems to be an all-pervasive attitude that the entire debate must revolve around parties outbidding each other on how much subsidy they will give—how much they are going to guarantee. That is nonsense; that is not what the issue is about. Instead, it is about how we can best use what is available, and I shall offer some ideas on that. I should just add that, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I do not have any special pleading to make, as I do not yet know the proposals for Cambridgeshire.
	The Government's approach to this matter is marked by four characteristics. There is almost an intention to create confusion about who is responsible: is the Secretary of State driving this, or the Post Office? Whenever a problem arises, it seems that it is automatically the other's responsibility. There is also a determination to micro-manage this whole process from the centre; as is typical of this Government, there is a refusal to accept that there just might be a better way. Attached to that, there is an aura almost of infallibility: the Government think that they know best, instead of accepting that they may have got this wrong and they have failed to convince anybody of their argument.
	My remarks will come entirely from a rural perspective. I do not intend to refer to urban post offices simply because there are none in my constituency and I do not have a depth of knowledge about them. There are some 7,700 rural post offices, and about 65 per cent. of all rural communities have a post office. By comparison, only 10 per cent. of rural communities have a branch of a bank. That is an important distinction, because it shows that in most rural communities the post office is the only local "financial institution".
	Of course, we have to accept that the majority of post offices are loss-making from a purely Post Office perspective—it would be unrealistic to deny that—but we should be looking for solutions. Before coming to that, however, I wish to emphasise the community and social role of a post office. As has been said, it is for many people a gathering place. It is also often combined with a shop and each part of the business gains from the other; attention has rightly been drawn to the amount of money people spend in the shop if they have just drawn money from the post office. Post offices are, of course, the outlets for the Post Office card account. I am sure I am not the only hon. Member who has received a lot of letters from people complaining that British Telecom now charges £4.50 when people do not pay their phone bill by direct debit. That demonstrates to me the number of people who still want to do everything by cash. That is another important reason why post offices are important, as is people's access to their benefits or pensions through them.
	We have a policy, as, I believe, does the whole House, of wanting to encourage people to work increasingly from or close to their home to reduce travel. That again provides a need for rural businesses to have access to a convenient post office. Even things such as eBay, which is all-pervasive these days, generate more and more business.
	The final point to make on the community and social role relates to the access criteria—the belief that the objective should be that virtually everybody is within 3 miles of a post office. We are talking about that distance as the crow flies, but in many rural areas the real distance may be double that—at least 6 miles, if not more—and it may be down narrow lanes, across motorways and so on. The proposal will certainly lead to far more car usage. A few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State a parliamentary question as to what assessment had been made of increased car usage and carbon emissions as a result of the proposals. Unsurprisingly, the answer came back that no such assessment had been made. I simply add that people who do not have a car will face a 2-mile walk—a 4-hour walk there and back—and that making such a journey is a near impossibility for somebody who is elderly and vulnerable.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and is being characteristically generous in giving way. My constituency, like his, has not had the closure announcements yet. Does he agree that if the Tenbury Wells post office were nominated for closure, the nearest post office for people would be in Leysters, which is 3.5 miles away? A bus runs between Tenbury Wells and Leysters, but it does so on the third Wednesday of the month and although it takes only 10 minutes to get to Leysters, one then has to wait five hours before one can go back. Does he agree that that makes the 3-mile criterion, or any of the criteria, completely inappropriate in constituencies such as ours?

James Paice: My hon. Friend makes his point admirably. I am sure that everyone who represents a rural area could recount similar situations.

Daniel Rogerson: rose—

James Paice: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and that will be my two interventions done.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the social element of what a post office provides, particularly in a rural community. Given that postmasters and postmistresses provide such a valuable service, does he share my concern that the threatening letters that they have received as part of this process show that they have been treated very shabbily indeed?

James Paice: I do, of course, agree. I am sure that all hon. Members who represent constituencies where the consultation process has been taking place will fully understand that the way in which the consultation and the closure process are being carried out involves seriously bad practice.
	My main criticism of this whole sorry saga is that it is a top-down decision. Of course some post offices are very badly run—we have all been to see them, so we cannot deny that. The simple reality is that they could be more successful if they were under different management. Many of them will never be profitable in a purely commercial sense, which is one reason why I have just discussed the social aspects.
	However, we ought to help and encourage the better ones to succeed, and the consultation appears to ignore that approach. Some excellent and apparently profitable post offices are being closed. Despite what the Prime Minister said earlier today about the post offices that have only 16 or 20 customers a week—a tiny minority of post offices have such a low level of usage—the reality is that many of them will remain open because of the access criteria and the fact that they are located in the most remote areas.
	What should be happening is that the Post Office should simply set delivery standards and requirements of a sub-post office and tell people how much they will get paid for the work; the figure should be one that does not incur a loss for the Post Office. That would allow the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress to make their own judgments about whether they can operate on that basis. It may depend on what other business they attach to it. Many may say that because they value their community and own the local shop or pub, they are happy to accept a small loss, because the village needs a post office. They may want to talk to local authorities—we have heard of the example of Essex—or other voluntary bodies and the local community. It is not a question of accepting continuous losses—no Government should do that—but of letting the individuals decide whether they can run a business on the basis of the standards and finances laid down by the Post Office, including perhaps subsidising it from other activities.
	All the discussion about new business for the Post Office—the Secretary of State went on and on about it this afternoon—is focused on what is being decided by the Post Office nationally. It is the Post Office in London that is deciding to look out for insurance business, currency exchange or whatever. That is top-down thinking. Instead, the entrepreneurial sub-postmaster should be able to look for his own business. He may want some help from the Post Office nationally, if that can be done, but he should be set free to find other forms of business, perhaps in conjunction with local authorities, that could be related to the post office activity and help to make his business more viable. That is why I wholly condemn the arrangement that will prevent those closing with compensation from providing similar services through other providers. It is true that such constraints are often applied for a year or two in commercial law when someone ceases an activity, but we are not talking about purely commercial situations. The Minister fully accepted that many post offices play a vital social role and the whole issue of commerciality should be pushed to one side, in terms of allowing those businesses to offer PayPal or other services. The issue is access to public services, especially in our rural areas, and is accompanied by the issues of the quality of life and social gain.
	We need a much more flexible approach to the network to accommodate post offices that fail, or what happens when a sub-postmaster wishes to retire or sell up. The system should facilitate a replacement in those circumstances, and that should be self-evident if we want a comprehensive network. We need to review urgently the planning and rating systems to encourage multi-use of our premises. I know that there are good examples of pubs, churches and village halls providing post office services, but they experience difficulties, including in the ratings sector, that need to be considered carefully. In many cases, the post office is part of the only remaining shop in the village and if the post office element is closed, the shop may go down too, especially with the restraint on trade that I have mentioned. The village is then left without any service. The implications for that on the need to travel, car usage, carbon emissions, and the sheer difficulty and harassment for individuals, are obvious.
	If the Government really care about the post office network, and do not take just a purely mechanistic view of it, the first thing that they must do is get a grip on what the Post Office is doing. Other hon. Members have raised the threats to sub-postmasters and mistresses who face closure. They have been told that if they get early information that their post offices are on the hit list, they must not tell anyone; otherwise, they will not get their compensation. This is all blackmail. It is wrong, and the Government have to get a grip on it. They could do other things. They could make it a condition that the lottery provider ought to enable all post offices, at least in rural areas, to have a terminal. They could say to the Post Office, "Just tell sub-postmasters and mistresses what you want from them, what the services are and how much you are prepared to pay. Let them decide whether they can take it on on that basis and let them go out and look for extra business."
	The Government could do all those things. They could reverse the whole process to a bottom-up system, but they will not. That was clear from what the Secretary of State said. No one in government really understands our rural communities. The Government believe in central decision making and that no individual can be trusted to make the right decisions. The main reason that they will not do these things is that they would have to admit that they are wrong.
	The Government have continued to waste billions of pounds with little to show for it, yet when they have a chance to do something good for no extra money they refuse to do so. It is typical of a Government who have had their day.

Ian Cawsey: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). We normally end up debating the future of pigs, so it is nice to move on to another subject, even if it still begins with the letter P.
	When the announcement was first made some months ago, I was a Government Whip. It is good to be able finally to stand up in the Chamber and make some comments about how the decision has affected Brigg and Goole. I am reminded of the first time I stood for election in 1992 in the old Brigg and Cleethorpes seat—unsuccessfully, I hasten to add—against the Tory MP Michael Brown, who is now my good friend. One of the big issues was post office closures. It seems almost like groundhog day; here we are, still discussing it—[Hon. Members: "More pigs!"] There will be no more pig analogies. That is the end of it.
	Thousands of post offices have been closed under Conservative and Labour Administrations. They would probably be closed under a Liberal Democrat Administration, too, if there ever was one. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) candidly said, we cannot control everything in the way that we would perhaps like to.
	Let me tell the House something about the experience in Brigg and Goole and how it has been handled. We are at the end of the process now and we were in the first tranche that was announced. When the announcement was made, it was proposed that Westfield Avenue post office in Goole, which is an urban post office, would be closed, and that the rural post offices in Reedness, Wroot, West Butterwick and Eastoft would change to outreach. We then went into the consultation.
	A lot of hon. Members have said that the consultation was a complete sham. I would say that it was a curate's egg in some respects. It is very difficult to understand how some of the decisions were finally reached, even though some of them were definitely improvements on the original proposals.

Stephen Hammond: Whether the consultation was a sham or not, did not the hon. Gentleman's constituents have the same experience as mine? First, some of the rationale that the Post Office put forward in its explanation was factually wrong. Secondly, the process was truncated to a shorter time than is usual for such consultation procedures.

Ian Cawsey: I would agree with that, based on my experience.
	Goole is a good example. We were told, "It's an urban area. There is another post office only 400 yards away, it is a big town centre that could take the capacity, and there is a regular bus journey of only 10 minutes." We could see the rationale. However, when I met the Post Office I pointed out that the bus ride, which takes only seven or eight minutes to get to the post office, is not the same on the way back. The people in the Post Office dealt with that with great incredulity. They said that they had never heard of a bus that took seven minutes to go down the road one way and then took longer to come the other way. The point was that the bus does not go that way—it is a circular route. A short journey to the post office becomes a tour round the town to come back. That had not registered on their radar at all. When we reached the final conclusion, which was that that post office should be closed, all I got was a nice little paragraph in the reasoning, something like, "The MP put up a decent argument. We looked into it but we are not doing anything about it."
	We made some progress with the outreach services. It was decided that the services covering Reedness and Wroot would remain in the shops where they are presently located, and that they would continue to be delivered by the people who deliver them now. Moreover, the fact that the outreach for Reedness was to come from the Goole post office meant that it could provide more services, including road tax and foreign currency. That shows how much had changed since we started our campaign, and that the decisions amounted to a bit of a curate's egg.
	What happened next has been described by other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. A final recommendation was made: the Goole office was to close and the others would be outreached, with two offices remaining in the shops where they were located. It was then announced that a complete hash had been made of one of the outreach offices in Lincoln—what was claimed to be a short walk across level ground turned out to be on a very steep hill.
	The result was that there was a change of mind about the office involved, and that the office at Wrawby was suddenly put up for closure, even though it was fine in the initial consultation. I met Post Office representatives and said that that decision was wrong because it meant that people had had to go through the mill twice, when once was bad enough. However, despite my great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I was told that saving one post office meant that another office would have to go.

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing the point that I made earlier—that all the access and other criteria used to decide which post offices should close in the end mean nothing because the Post Office is determined to achieve the target of 2,500 closures.

Ian Cawsey: A few weeks after being told that the office at Wrawby was viable, I was told that it no longer was. When I asked why, I was told that most of the offices that the Post Office proposed to keep open were not viable, but that it would propose closure only for offices that were not viable.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is touching on a problem that I have encountered in the north of Lewis. The postmistress at Skigersta is very anxious to save her office, but she is worried that solving her problem might cause difficulties for the Port of Ness office just a little way down the round. The closure programme is putting postmistresses and postmasters in a very invidious position.

Ian Cawsey: I understand exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.
	What transactions are undertaken in post offices? All hon. Members will recognise that question from their discussions with the Post Office. What one is told—on a confidential basis only—when one asks is that the number of transactions that post offices carry out is very low. I was shocked when I found out how low the number is: as a local person, I had thought that it would be much higher.
	There is no doubt that a significant change has taken place. Some of it is due to demographic changes, and no firm can lose 4 million customers in a relatively short period without such changes being part of the reason. In addition, people are making different decisions about how they get their pensions and benefits. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that 80 per cent. of pensioners had stopped getting their pensions from post offices before Labour was even elected. The demographic change is therefore not new, but has been going on for some time.
	I picked up a petition at one of my local post offices that appeared to have been signed by everyone in the village. I said to the sub-postmaster that he had done extraordinarily well, but he replied, "Yes, Ian, but if everyone who signed the petition used the post office I would not need it." That is another common problem.
	Questions have been asked about the adequacy or otherwise of the Post Office's management. I sometimes think that they have created problems for themselves, and that they continue to do so. For example, I said earlier that I was very pleased that the office at Reedness was to stay in the shop where it is presently located. The local sub-postmistress is willing to work more hours, but to do so she requires a relatively small amount of IT and a laptop computer. Without that equipment, she is forced to rely on the time that the person from the main post office can give, but the Post Office has refused to provide it.
	The Post Office is making week-by-week, month-by-month savings on the hours that the Reedness sub-postmistress works, but it will not meet the one-off capital cost involved in giving her the kit that will allow her to work extra, voluntary hours while her shop is open. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs on the Front Bench, as I have raised this matter with him previously. I hope that he is able to help.
	I turn now to the provision of television licences. Why did the BBC decide not to let post offices sell the stamps that people use to buy licences? The answer is that the tender from PayPoint was £100 million less than the one offered by the Post Office. Why was it so much lower, and why has no one ever challenged the Post Office about whether it was serious and credible in its attempt to get the business?
	John Taylor of the Rawcliffe Bridge post office told me that he wanted to install a PayPoint terminal when the decision about television licence stamps was taken but was told that he could not do so. I understand that the arrangements are more flexible now, but when the changes were all taking place he was told that he could not do it. PayPoint found other locations and that is not going to change now.
	The same sub-postmaster said to me, "If you look at the back of a British Telecom bill, where it sets out how you can pay, it no longer mentions the post office." People can still pay through their post office, but it does not say so on the bill. I took that up with British Telecom, which simply said, "We're never going to stop people paying through the post office—obviously, we have links with the Post Office historically—but it is the most expensive way for us to collect our money from customers, and we ain't going to advertise it, although we'll continue to accept payments through the post office."
	Only today, a constituent who wanted to pay her water bill told me that she would be charged more at the post office than at the local garage or the local shop. It makes me think: why is the Post Office creating these barriers to business? The report of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which has been referred to, said that poor management has been a factor over the years, but that there was greater confidence in the people who are in place now. I really hope that that is true, but we are still waiting to see.
	Local authorities can and should play a role, and I welcome some of the recent developments. My area is covered by two local authorities, one of which is North Lincolnshire council. When the announcement was first made, all that time ago, I had a conversation with Liz Redfern, who was then leader of the council. I asked whether there was something that the council could do. It is fair to say that I met with a polite response but not a great deal of interest. However, in May last year, North Lincolnshire was the only council in the country that went from being Conservative to Labour; I am happy about that, although I am not happy that only one council changed in that way, but at least the council concerned was my local council. Mark Kirk, who is now the leader of the council, is in discussion with its offices on how they can work with local post offices. Perhaps there can be outreach to the villages, too, so that local government services there use the post offices, boost the number of hours, and so make the post offices more viable.
	My other local council is the Tory East Riding of Yorkshire council, and I have to say that on many issues, including the one that we are discussing, it is very enlightened. Stephen Parnaby, the leader, is doing a good job there. We were county councillors together. He is a good bloke, and he will be pleased that he is in  Hansard. He came up with the idea, which his cabinet supported, of the local council becoming a corporate sub-postmaster. If the Post Office approves the idea, the council will be able to deliver post office branch services via its mobile libraries, its customer service centres, which already exist, and village schools. That is a way in which local authorities can make a big difference.
	The council does not pay the tax on its vehicles at post offices, but in the council's defence, it can be said that there is a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency office right next door to County hall, so it is probably difficult to justify doing so. Again, that is a simple thing that councils can do: they can get all their fleet taxed at local post offices. All hon. Members should ask their local councils whether they do that.
	I want to mention sub-postmasters. I welcome the package and the fact that, this time, sub-postmasters get something if they have to go, because no such provision was in place before, and that was a mistake. However, what about those who want to go? At least one sub-postmaster in my area—I will not say who it is, because that would set another hare running—really wanted to be let go, under the consultation, but he has been told that that cannot happen. What happens to those people when the process finishes? We need answers to that. We should always remember that in this debate, we are talking about the future and livelihoods of the people who run our post offices.
	We are ahead of most areas; frankly, we are at the end. Goole post office is closed, and the Wroot and Reedness services are staying in the shop. We are trying to work with the council to boost services in those outreach locations. I was speaking to the sub-postmasters in West Butterwick, Eastoft and Wrawby, and for all sorts of reasons that are not the business of the House, none of them is seeking any further involvement with the Post Office. They have made their decisions about what they want to do with their lives, and they want to move on. Frankly, there would be no benefit to Brigg and Goole from the suspension being proposed tonight. Indeed, it would mean a further period of uncertainty for the sub-postmasters concerned.
	We maintain a network across our area, which is big and rural. I remain as determined as ever to work with the two councils in my area, which are of different political persuasions, to ensure that that remains the case, and to ensure that, despite the odds, we have a vibrant post office network for the future.

Andrew Turner: Post office closures have hit many communities extremely hard. The Isle of Wight is no different. In Hampshire and the Isle of Wight consultations were held on 62 branch closures. However, despite many objections, only one branch was reprieved. Does not that call into question the whole consultation process? If a decision cannot be changed, it is not a consultation. The process taking place now is merely a sham.
	Evidence that I have unearthed calls into question the closure process. Let us take the Isle of Wight as an example. Ten sub-post offices on the island were earmarked for closure. I worked with the rural community council and the chamber of commerce to draft a detailed response, which was submitted during the public consultation process. I should particularly like to thank Joanna Richards of the RCC for all her hard work. The first failure occurred when I did not receive an acknowledgement for the submission. That was put down to an administrative error.
	My first confirmation that the closures were going ahead was a phone call the evening before the decision booklet was issued. In that booklet there appeared to be no reference to the issues that many other people and I had raised. It was as if our views did not count and the decision to close our local branches had already been taken. I am sure colleagues have had the same experience. We raised the matter with John Rattle, head of external relations at Post Office Ltd, who stated in an e-mail:
	"All correspondence received is shared with Postwatch during and after the Public Consultation."
	I have asked for documentary evidence from Post Office Ltd to show that my submission was taken into account. No such evidence has been forthcoming. I do not believe that any exists.
	My office and I pay tribute to Gary Hepburn, south and west regional manager for Postwatch for his hard work on the current and previous closure plans. When we contacted Postwatch, Mr. Hepburn wrote:
	"Postwatch finds it most unfortunate that many of our comments, and those made by you, were not mentioned in the branch summaries issued in the decision documents and we have raised this with Post Office Ltd."
	Mr. Hepburn says that Postwatch does not receive all correspondence, in spite of what Mr. Rattle says. Mr. Hepburn reported:
	"Post Office Ltd supply us with a summary sheet for each Post Office. . . We do not get to see individual letters and, indeed, we do not know the total number of letters received, only the number of times an issue has been raised."
	Furthermore, it appears that petitions count as only one response. Postwatch stated:
	"We understand that petitions and duplicated letters are either excluded from this list or count as one contact",
	so not only does Postwatch not see all the responses, but it is not made aware just how strongly people feel. For example, surely if 3,000 constituents sign a petition saying that a branch should remain open because of poor transport links, it should be recorded that 3,000 people, and not just one, raised the issue.
	When we raised a specific matter about the bus service in Ventnor, Post Office Ltd allegedly said it was not responsible for the buses. I accept that, of course, but surely adequate public transport provision must be taken into account by Post Office Ltd. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman has revealed how Post Office Ltd seems uninterested in public demand. Does he agree that this mass closure, which will perhaps reduce the number of post offices to 4,500, is driven more by the requirement to satisfy the needs of Post Office Ltd than by the requirement to satisfy the needs of local communities?

Andrew Turner: I do. It is not the numbers that matter, but the cost. The company does not seem to consider that. It seems to be looking at pure numbers, for the Government.
	If responses are not properly taken into consideration and a decision has already been made to close 2,500 branches, including Lowtherville, Calbourne, Meadow Road and Hunnyhill on the Isle of Wight, the consultation process is a shambles.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the previous consultations, is the hon. Gentleman surprised to hear that in 98 per cent. of cases the process was a sham and the Post Office went ahead with closure? In only 2 per cent. of cases did it listen to the community.

Andrew Turner: I recognise that, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber; I had not realised that.

Richard Younger-Ross: That is not true.

Andrew Turner: Not true?

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

Andrew Turner: I come to my second point. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister confirmed that only 7,500 branches are required to meet the minimum access criteria. We are told that after the network change programme, there will be a network of about 11,500 branches. What assurance can the Minister give to people on the Isle of Wight that in two or three years' time we will not be going through exactly the same process again? It would still be possible to meet the access criteria of 4,000 fewer branches, so when should we expect further closures?
	My third point is about profitability. I asked Post Office Ltd whether any profitable branch had been closed under the current closure programme. In a letter to me, Alan Cook, the managing director of Post Office Ltd, wrote:
	"Neither the level of profitability nor the level of saving achieved is the overriding consideration in proposing a particular branch for closure."
	If branches are not closed because of lack of profitability—if so, I am glad—will the Minister tell us how they are selected for closure? That is not at all clear. Earlier in the letter, Mr. Cook also wrote:
	"Only in the most exceptional circumstances would an office profitable to Post Office Ltd be closed under network change."
	Taxpayers' money is being used to close what are effectively private businesses. Can the Minister clarify whether any have closed, and if so why?
	On the whole closure issue, Post Office Ltd says that it is working to the Government's agenda, but then the Government say that decisions are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. Surely someone is ultimately responsible. I should be grateful if the Minister told us who.

Michael Clapham: Consultations have not yet started in my constituency, just as they have not in that of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). As the area plan is drawn together, the local authority will no doubt be contacted to give its view. I have already started to contact my local authority and the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency to ask for their views.
	I am writing to the chief executive of the local authority because I want to be sure that he has taken the geographical aspects of my constituency into consideration when he writes to Post Office Ltd to give it information on the area plan.
	The Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform was directed to consider the new post office plan because in previous inquiries, such as that into the urban regeneration programme, our attention had been drawn to the fact that financial losses and haphazard closures were resulting in a run-down of the sub-post office network in an unplanned way that could be greatly to its detriment. Consequently, our report of 7 February concentrated on those areas and, in particular, the consultation process. In paragraph 7, we refer to the complexities of the network and say that in answer to a parliamentary question about what size the network would need to be in order to meet the national criteria, the Government replied that just 7,500 post offices would suffice. We came to the view that it was not satisfactory to accept that the network should continue to shrink haphazardly and drift towards that figure, and that Post Office Ltd. should be obliged to use its best endeavours to keep the network at the figure of 11,500 that has been worked to.
	In citing that figure, I must also draw the House's attention to a figure that Post Office Ltd used during the inquiry when it said that there could be as many as 12,000 post offices plus 500 outreach post offices. The eventual figure could therefore be anywhere between 11,500 and 12,200; perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he winds up. In any event, whether there are to be 12,200 post offices plus 500 outreach post offices or 11,500 post offices, there is no doubt that the network will require a great deal of support.

John Penrose: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's account of the Select Committee's inquiry. Did it consider options other than closure to maintain the 11,000 post office branches at a profitable level, such as finding cheaper ways of delivering some of the services that are delivered manually over the counter or alternative revenue-raising opportunities for existing branches? If so, what conclusion did it reach?

Michael Clapham: We were focusing purely on the network change programme, although we moved into other areas in considering how the Post Office may well be better prepared for the future.
	During the inquiry we raised four major concerns, which are listed at the front of the report. We say that the six week consultation process was not sufficient. We go on to say that the merger between Postwatch and the consumer council may bring some disruption. We also said:
	"Even with the restructuring, the long-term future of the network will depend on the entrepreneurial flair of Post Office Ltd".
	That is one of the things referred to by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose)—how the Post Office may help to stimulate a more appropriate approach to the consumer in sub-post offices. Fourthly, we made a point about how the post office network should be sustained in future.
	When we considered our first point, we were rather surprised about the lack of transparency in the consultation process. The process begins with an 11-week consultation, which draws up an area plan working with Postwatch—the necessary operating plan within that area. It is not until the 11th week that the local MP is approached, and between those times there is no contact or engagement with the community. We thought that that process needed to be changed.

Michael Weir: Is the situation not slightly worse? As part of the evidence, we discovered that, on occasion, where a post office was scheduled for closure, and there had been a discussion about transferring business to another branch, business details were not shared between the two postmasters. The receiving branch did not know the closing branch's information, and vice versa. That seems a bizarre way of going about the consolidation of post offices.

Michael Clapham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he raises an important aspect. Because of the opaqueness, there is no connection between the post offices that will be affected by the process. The situation must be clarified.

Lee Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Clapham: I have taken my two interventions. The clock is moving on and many others want to speak in the debate.
	In the 11th week, the MP gets involved to ensure that details drawn up in the 11-week period are made available to the public during the six-week public consultation so that the rationale behind a sub-post office being identified for closure is known. We can then properly advance arguments for its retention. There is a need for change in the consultation process. The Minister may want to refer to this matter later: the appeals procedure is run through Postcomm, but neither the MP nor the local authority has the input that I believe they should have in that procedure. The MP should, for example, be able to get involved in the appeals procedure by making a submission.
	On the merger involving Postwatch, the thing to remember is that Postwatch has played an important role. When we met the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, Mr. Thomson, he paid tribute to the way in which Postwatch had played its part. We looked at other areas of the country, and in Glasgow, for example, we found that 24 per cent. of the post offices identified were changed as a result of Postwatch's input. Postwatch is an important part of the process. We must be aware of whether it will be able to retain its robustness if it is merged with the Consumer Council. If it loses its robustness it could disrupt the process that we want.
	We have heard that some aspects of sub-post offices' business could be developed. We believe that Post Office Ltd could play a more important part in supporting postmasters who want to be more entrepreneurial.
	We were concerned about whether the network could be sustained. If it is reduced to 12,200 with 500 outreach post offices or to 11,500, it will still need the Government's commitment of £1.7 billion until 2011. That is an enormous amount for sustaining the post office network. We must also be aware that there will be closures over which neither the Government nor Post Office Ltd have control. If a postmaster wants to retire, the post office could close if no alternative venue is found for it. Even though we believe that a minimum of 11,500 post offices, supported by the money that the Government have contributed, could be sustainable, there will still be fragility around the edges. We must be aware of that—I know that the Minister is.
	The money that the Government are making available will make the network sustainable. The Opposition did not say whether they would make the same sort of commitment after 2011. They should be prepared to comment on that. Are they prepared to match the Government's commitment to ensure the continuity of the network?
	The suspension for which the motion calls would merely delay the inevitable, caused by the change in market behaviour, which has been detrimental to the post office service. If we are to stop the haphazard and unplanned run-down, we need the sort of plan that the Government have proposed. When hon. Members decide how to vote, I hope that they will vote to ensure a sustainable post office network. That means supporting the Government's plan.

John Randall: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), although his view of Postwatch as a robust organisation does not reflect my experience. Several hon. Members spoke to Postwatch about closures in London, and it seemed to lie on its back and wait to be tickled by the Post Office. It appeared simply to accept everything.
	I shall be brief because I am aware of the number of Members who want to speak. We are considering a highly emotive subject. In my constituency and those of many hon. Friends and colleagues, it causes as much concern as any other local matter in recent times. Two post offices in my constituency are down for closure. My constituency is small, so that is a high number and I know both post offices well. Without going too far into individual merits—we could all do that—I will make a robust response to the consultation about Moorfield Road and Uxbridge Common Park Road post offices because they are as much a part of the community as the post offices in hon. Friends' rural communities. In suburbia, a parade of shops is exactly like village shops. Moorfield road is on a council estate and the post office is a vital part of the community. Masses of people have written to me about it. I agree that it is not good enough just to get a petition going and to try to make what we can out of the situation. I want to be pragmatic. I want to ensure that my constituents still get what they want.
	In Uxbridge, we have had the experience of a Crown post office being moved into a branch of WH Smith—the experience has been shared elsewhere—although the move has not happened yet. We had a consultation period, during which I and members of the public raised serious concerns—the move is to the first floor, and we were worried about disabled access—and we received assurances. The post office will open next month and we will be watching it very carefully. However, the important thing is that those services will still be available. I hope that the post office will give the same service, if not a better one.
	I want to speak as a retailer. As many hon. Members know, my family business has been in operation for a long time, and we have had to deal with changing patterns of what people want in the way of services. Anyone who has been in business for 120 years has to adapt. I therefore accept that things have changed and that that has not been all for the bad. Earlier we talked about eBay, for example, which has meant a lot of people wanting to post things that they are selling on.
	A few years ago, we started selling stamps in my shop, when the Post Office allowed us to. They proved so popular that people started arriving with parcels that they wanted us to send, but of course we could not do so, because we are allowed only to sell first and second-class stamps, which is fine. However, I thought it would be a good idea to open a sub-post office in my shop. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, so I was not thinking entirely of the community; I was thinking of business considerations. My shop is big enough, and a sub-post office would have brought lots of people in. However, I was told that I would not be able to have one. What amazed me, however, was that I would have been paid to have one. At that stage, I thought that I would have pay to get the franchise and have that excellent brand—the Post Office—in my shop.
	I understand that it is important for a sub-post office to exist in some communities, but that that might not be economical. However, I cannot help feeling that the Post Office has certain services to offer.

David Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to find that, like many other hon. Members whose constituencies face closures, I visited every sub-post office in my constituency in the 11-week period? In virtually every sub-post office I found substantial openness to modernisation and entrepreneurial flair, but from talking to Post Office management at the regional level, I found a gap between wishing the Post Office to succeed and having the vision and creativity to plot a way forward that can save the 11,500 post offices that were mentioned earlier. I am not confident that the management have that vision.

John Randall: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It is a great shame and a disgrace that those entrepreneurs are not being allowed to provide the services that they want to provide and that they know their customers want. We are getting a flavour of that from, for example, the talk about the one-for-one closures—I add my name to those who have talked about it. It was less than two weeks ago that I was told about that by the Post Office. If I managed to stop one closure in my constituency, that would be one thing—the Post Office would probably try to find another post office—but actually that did not matter, because there could be another one or even five post offices in London, and then the Post Office would come looking around in Hillingdon. The situation is ridiculous.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the flawed consultation? When I met the Post Office to discuss the three closures proposed in my constituency, it did not even know that one post office had been closed 100 yd away, in the neighbouring constituency of Epping Forest, because it was not in London. No thought has gone into the process whatever.

John Randall: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. We have been hearing repeatedly this afternoon that the consultation is flawed. That is a point that the Minister must go away with. If one thing is to make the whole process a mockery, it is when the examples that my hon. Friend has come up with are proven to be true. I question whether the Post Office knew this or that thing about this or that post office—frankly, I do not think it did know.

Justine Greening: Another example would be the Lower Richmond Road post office, which is threatened with closure. Post Office management were apparently totally unaware that the Putney hospital site, which is now derelict, was about to be redeveloped as a primary care centre.

John Randall: The fact is that these sub-post offices provide something that we all agree is unique and very special. People want them, but some management team comes in and starts to close them completely randomly. This is being done because there are too many in an area; it has nothing to do with which is the most profitable. It is hard to imagine the representative of a chain of retail stores saying, "We'll close this one and that one because they are making a loss. Those two are making a profit, but it doesn't matter. We'll close one of them anyway." Those involved are not even bothering to look at this.

John Hemming: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Randall: No, I must keep going. The hon. Gentleman can have his own turn later if he manages to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I understand the visceral hatred that Labour Members feel when asked to vote for a Conservative proposal. I also understand that they are trying to find a good reason not to vote for this motion, which is why this has become about a suspension. We have heard some excellent ideas today, including the one suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). We should now go back to the Post Office to say, "Don't close anything. These are the ideas that have been put forward. Let's think about them." As soon as I heard about the Essex county council initiative, I phoned up the leader of the London borough of Hillingdon, Ray Puddifoot, and he said that he would look into it.
	I am not sure whether the Post Office actually wants to be helpful with these initiatives from local authorities. When I asked a Post Office representative how much each post office would cost, the first figure I was given was £20,000; then I was told that it could be more. I asked whether it might double to £40,000, I was told that that would about cover it—maybe. I am not sure that the Post Office wants local authorities to succeed in these initiatives. That is what upsets me, and that is why I am making a plea to Labour Members, many of whom are as upset about these closures as we are, to put aside their hatred of voting for anything proposed by the Conservatives just this once. Many of them have signed early-day motions. It is now time for us, the House of Commons, to say to the Post Office, "Stop! Let's look at how we can save these post offices. Don't just contract your business. If you keep selling everything off, it will just get smaller and smaller. Why not be adventurous? Why not be entrepreneurial? Why not try to expand the network?" That is the message that we should be sending.

Michael Jabez Foster: There is a kind of wake going on in Hastings and Rye this week, because three of our post offices have closed. There is still hope, however, because resuscitation work is going on in respect of the Old Town post office, and I hope that common sense will prevail. Having said that, I can tell the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) that I shall not be voting for the Conservative motion today, because it does not provide a solution.
	The Labour Government have given more stability to the network than anything that went before— [ Laughter. ] Yes, more stability than anything that went before.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman have any confidence, as I do in relation to Staffordshire, that the Essex solution is pointing somewhat in the right direction? Does he feel that it is possible to have some element of constructive engagement on that subject?

Michael Jabez Foster: Yes, I do believe that there might be alternatives. Indeed, there might be other methodologies that could save some of the post offices that are now under threat. The Essex option—and perhaps an East Sussex option—could play that part. However, all such options would require funding.
	The fact is that it is this Labour Government who have provided record funding for Post Office services— £150 million, as we have already heard, on a regular and ongoing basis for subsidising social need and £1.7 billion over the five-year period. Despite what has been said today, I am still unsure whether the Conservative Opposition are pledging that amount of money. What I am sure about is that they are not pledging anything more than that, but more will certainly be required if we are to support the sort of motion that the Conservatives have proposed today. They say no closures should happen, but some post offices will still have to close. I am not cherry-picking here and saying that our post offices should not close while everyone else's should, but it is surely a fact that some post offices will be unviable. That must be the case. Suggesting, as the Conservative motion does, that there should be no closures at all is unrealistic and therefore purposeless. For that reason, I will not support it.
	Having said that, I do not believe that the present consultation or the closure programme have been right. I want to impress on the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs that other things could have happened and I certainly want the next round of considerations to be dealt with very differently.
	The first thing to establish is Conservative policy. It appeared—I say "appeared", but I am not sure what tense I should be using—to be that only profitable post offices should be retained. In and of itself, however, that is faulty. If we simply maintain profitable post offices, 4,000 or thereabouts will remain throughout the country, but they will all be in urban areas, able to compete alongside each other while still making profits, but at the expense of other more socially deprived areas. That does not amount to a comprehensive universal service across the nation. For that reason, the premise must be wrong.

Dawn Butler: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's point. Does he agree that we have to fight for a sustainable post office network, but that what we should not do is give out false information about post offices when they may not be closing? Mr. Suppiah Suren of the Kensal Rise post office said:
	"There are no plans to close my branch. The Liberal Democrats have sent out the wrong information",
	which resulted in his losing 15 to 20 per cent. of his business. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to work together in a sensible manner to ensure that we have a sustainable network?

Michael Jabez Foster: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the sort of vintage hypocrisy that we hear on the Opposition Benches, which is certainly not the way to make progress on what we all believe is an important part of our British way of life. We will not be enticed to support the Tories' gesturing until they are prepared to come up with the bucks to make it possible. At the moment, that does not seem to be likely. The Tories' banners and petitions do not impress me and will certainly not get me to support their motion this evening. We recognise that modern lifestyles and technology mean that things will change. That is inevitable. I will not deal with the Lib Dem propositions, mainly because to do so would be a waste of valuable time, but in any event, it is not yet bedtime so it is inappropriate to listen to their "happily ever after" stories.
	The reality is that the post office network has to change, but how? That is where I would like to embolden the Minister to take a more robust view of what should happen. Some time ago, I spoke about post offices in my own constituency in an Adjournment debate and had discovered that the Post Office was being subsidised to the tune of £18,000 for each loss-making outlet. That is an amazing sum of money, which had never been available before. It seemed to me then that it would not be necessary to close very many post offices, so I think the Government have been rather unambitious in respect of that 2,500 figure. I know that they often say "up to" that number of closures, but it has been used as the number that the Post Office has taken as necessary.

John Randall: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he think it is good business practice to close down a profitable business?

Michael Jabez Foster: Of course not, and if it is wholly profitable, that is great, but it should not be subsidised. The issue I want to come on to is what counts as profitable. What is the proper definition of "profitable"? This is where I want to encourage the Minister to look further into the facts. In connection with the Adjournment debate that I mentioned, I looked into exactly how much it cost to run some local branches in my constituency.
	The Post Office was happy about handing me the figures until I decided to use them, but as I had not received them in confidence, I was able to share them with everyone. I was told that the post office in Tilling Green, Rye, was costing £18,000 a year to run at postmaster or local branch level, but that the on-cost or central cost—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister still thinks I have not understood the position, but I think I have—was £24,000. In other words, it was costing £18,000 to run the show and £24,000 to support it.
	Then I began to look at the other figures, and I thought "How can this be? I know that this is not McDonald's or Pizza Hut and that the expertise at its centre is somewhat greater than it is in enterprises of that kind, but £24,000 to support an £18,000 outlet? It just cannot work like that." I wanted to know precisely what central costs were making a profitable outlet unprofitable, so I asked a parliamentary question about it. I am going to press my hon. Friend the Minister a little further in the hope that he can help me now.
	At the beginning of February, I asked how the figures were made up. Being not entirely sure of the answer, my hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that he would ask the Post Office. A month later I asked when I would know the answer, and my hon. Friend asked the Post Office again. My question has still not been answered. Does the Post Office actually know how much it is costing to run the central administration? I do not think it does.
	I want to embolden my hon. Friend. I think he has done great in ensuring that the right subsidies have been placed at the disposal of Post Office. The Labour Government have made it possible for the Post Office to maintain a network that it would not otherwise have been able to maintain. I do not know whether the Post Office's management are incompetent, and I will not accuse them of incompetence until I do know, but I cannot know that until I know how the central costs are made up and whether enterprises such as this are profitable or unprofitable.
	I ask my hon. Friend now to insist that the Post Office give the information. It is owned by us. We are the shareholders, and we demand to know how its costs are made up so that we can determine whether the closures that are planned at present, and will be planned in future, are necessary. The Government are very bold in the main, but were they bold enough when they allowed the Post Office to consider as many as 2,500 closures? My guess is that it need not have gone as far as that. Certainly it will not need to go as far as that if we can do something about the amount that is apparently being spent by Post Office Ltd, perhaps through incompetence and perhaps not. In any event, the matter needs further investigation.

Tim Loughton: I am delighted to have been called. I am particularly delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), and perhaps to represent the voice of sanity at the other end of Sussex, where we stand up for our post offices and for our constituents. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he will not have "done great" himself this evening unless he supports the motion tabled by members of my party.
	It is extraordinary that the focus of the Liberal Democrats' attack today has been not on the Government or their closure programme, but on the Conservatives. The same happened in my constituency when we were fighting for our post offices: the Liberal Democrats' attack was entirely based on what the Conservatives were doing, which was standing up for the post offices. It is the Liberal Democrats who are merely playing politics, and who have the audacity to claim otherwise.
	I think I should declare an interest. I am pleased to speak soon after the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), because earlier this week I was told by someone investigating my family tree that one of my ancestors, Joseph Loughton, and his father-in-law Ebenezer Easting ran a sub-post office in North Somercotes near Hull, just outside the hon. Gentleman's constituency, in 1892. Perhaps a more relevant interest for me to declare, however, is that my constituency contains the headquarters of the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I must say in response to what has been said by the Secretary of State and other Members that there is considerable disquiet among many sub-postmasters about the way in which they are represented by that organisation, which appears to have caved in and almost taken the Government's shilling in going along with the exercise. The new general secretary has certainly not been as robust in standing up for the future of our sub-postmasters as his predecessor, who lived in my constituency. He lives in Scotland, and comes down to Sussex every week.
	On 17 December, I spoke at length on post office closures in Adur and Worthing. I was able to go on for 63 minutes, because of the collapse of business. The Minister responded to that debate and, despite three interventions from me, failed to mention the subject of post offices in Adur and Worthing. I hope that he will have another stab today, because in my constituency we are not losing one, two or three sub-post offices but seven—more than anywhere else in Sussex. It is not 18 per cent. of the sub-post office network—the average across the country—that will be going but 50 per cent. of my sub-post office branches. Mine is a predominantly urban constituency with a high pensioner population— 4.6 per cent. of Worthing's population is over 85, which is the highest percentage in the country—and those people rely disproportionately on the post office network. However, they must now travel to the few remaining crowded and overworked branches.
	In Lancing and Sompting in my constituency, the post offices are all to be closed, with the exception of the Crown post office, which has to provide a service for 28,000 people, although it is already struggling to deal with its increased business. The impact of the closure programme is not about nimbyism but about unfairness and unsustainability. Despite the petition signed by 6,200 people that I presented in the House, the hundreds of letters, the marches and public meetings, and the consultation exercise, which ended on Christmas eve and was truncated to six weeks, we got absolutely nowhere. On 29 January, it was confirmed that every single one of those seven branches would close. At the same time, MPs were invited by the Post Office to inspect the new state-of-the-art outreach mobile post offices, but we will not have any of those post offices in my constituency or elsewhere in Sussex. At the same time, our constituents have been serenaded with adverts for a new Christmas club, which is available at 14,000 post offices branches, if they can find one. At the same time, we have seen the multi-million pound rebranding exercise for "The People's Post Office". If that is how the Post Office thinks it will earn that title, it deserves all the criticism that is coming to it.
	I have never dealt with a more duplicitous, bullying, self-serving, incompetent, arrogant and out-of-touch public body than the Post Office proved itself in the consultation. I do not use those terms lightly, and I am happy to justify my claims. You will judge, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Post Office is off my Christmas card list, although those cards would probably only get lost in the post in any case. It is duplicitous, because it has proved itself a willing henchman following the Government edict that set in train the latest closure programme of 2,500 branches, based on spurious, ill-conceived and self-destructive criteria. Its duplicity is exceeded only by the actions of Government Ministers and Labour Back Benchers, who are happy to pose for the cameras in front of post office branches in their constituencies, pleading a special case for keeping those branches open.
	Will the Minister confirm this whole question whether the Government told the Post Office that it had to close up to 2,500 branches; or does the Post Office really have to close 2,500 branches? That is a serious question that has not been answered. Let us not forget that the closures of those 2,500 branches, in contrast with what happened under previous Governments, are compulsory. They are not voluntary—they are compulsory closures. The Government and the Post Office are duplicitous in saying that they have to close those branches because business has reduced. That has happened because the way the Government have instructed the Post Office has taken business away from post offices, following changes to the payment of pensions, the post office card account, about which the Government have dithered, and the changes to car tax discs and television licences. They are bullies, because they have virtually blackmailed sub-postmasters into accepting compensation terms at the outset, otherwise they may end up getting nothing at all. Those postmasters have, under this Government, already lost retirement tax relief, which was often based on their business. Their life savings are based on those businesses, and they cannot afford to lose that compensation if their business closes. They have been sworn to secrecy and scared out of lobbying to keep their post offices open, and, as we have heard, the compensation is linked to their not providing any competing services for at least a year: no lottery tickets, no foreign currency, no accepting payment for utilities. How is that acting in the interests of the people, rather than of the post office network, which is supposed to be there for the people? As every Member has said, the consultation was a complete and utter sham.
	On the county council negotiations, I pay tribute to Essex, which has led the way, and my own West Sussex county council is currently trying to negotiate with the Post Office. I say "trying" because the Post Office is being very tardy in producing information that will allow the negotiations to go forward. All the while branches are closing down, however, and the equipment will be taken out of them, and it will be very hard to get them back up and running again if there is an eventual deal. The Post Office is clearly dragging its feet and not producing the necessary facts and figures, despite the Minister's warm words that he wishes to encourage such negotiations. Will the Government support a moratorium on closures while negotiations go forward? That is a crucial question.
	I also accused the Post Office of being self-serving. It is supposed to be a community service. Its services are located within shops that are the heart of our communities, but there has been a complete lack of transparency in the consultation and closure programme. We just do not know which are the unprofitable branches, how unprofitable they are, or how much money it would take to make them profitable. Sub-postmasters have offered to take cuts in their remuneration, but, again, they have been completely rebuffed. The reasons for this lack of information on closing branches and for the Post Office dragging its feet on negotiations with other providers are that it is interested only in maximising the profitability of its remaining branches and it wants to get rid of the rest of the competition. Profits before people and public service is the hallmark of the whole enterprise.
	The Post Office is incompetent because many of the facts in the consultation documents were full of holes. In the response to the consultation, in respect of one of my branches, there was a reference to the problems of crossing busy roads such as the A27. However, the A27 runs nowhere near that branch—but that was in the "facts" the Post Office used to justify the closure of that branch. When it was notified of the branch closures, one of the Worthing branches was described as being in East Sussex, but it is in West Sussex—and that from an organisation that specialises in addresses. That is completely bizarre. The response to this consultation was a total sham. In only a few lines, the future of our community post offices, the livelihoods of sub-postmasters who have dedicated themselves for many years, and the hopes of hundreds of thousands of pensioners who rely on them, were dashed without any come-back at all.
	Serious question marks hang over all the access criteria as well. People are supposed to be within a mile of alternative post offices. That is all very well for a crow who lives in the post office that will be closed down, but many people live a mile the other way from the post office that will be closed down, so that could mean a two-mile trip, as the crow flies. Those criteria are also full of holes.
	The consultation also ignores deprivation figures. During the consultation in Sussex, the new deprivation figures came out and they showed that my councils had slipped further down the deprivation league and that they now ranked above average for deprivation. All such factors were ignored.
	The Post Office is arrogant, too. It seems to believe, with the connivance of the Government, that it should be above the scrutiny of Parliament and the parliamentary process on behalf of the people. All the claims are about the survival of the post office network. It has stuck two fingers up at pensioners, local businesses, the communities of which many post offices form the heart, environmental considerations, councils, councillors and Members of Parliament—yet it has the temerity to call itself the people's Post Office.
	This whole consultation has been about blackmail and bullying. If we give in now, that will be a form of appeasement, and in a few years the Post Office will come back and say, "We need to close yet more branches in order to make the network sustainable." It is not on, and it is not fair, and we should continue to object in the fiercest terms.

Martin Salter: It is a pleasure to follow the impassioned plea by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I share some of his frustration about how this process has been handled. Even Labour Members who support the Government think that it is fair to say that the consultation process has been less than transparent, and at times shambolic. The data that have been used do not bear scrutiny.
	I gave careful consideration to the motion that stands in the name of the leader of the Conservative party—after all, like all hon. Members, I am a supporter of the post office network—but I do not believe that there are market solutions to every problem and I support the use of public subsidy to sustain the network for social reasons. Although it is not particularly fashionable in new Labour circles, I also believe in state intervention to create trade for the network. That is why I would have tried a lot harder to keep many services, such as dealing with TV licences and some benefits collection, within the Post Office's purview. I believe that because I do not think that post offices are just about providing vital community services; I think that they are an embodiment of civil society at the heart of our communities, and we need to intervene to ensure that they have a future.
	Of course none of that philosophy sits easily with the Conservative party and its policy of laissez-faire economics, which would allow unprofitable businesses simply to go to the wall. I was looking for some merit when I scanned the Tory motion, but I found it not only wanting but profoundly hypocritical. It was hypocritical because the Conservative party would put no extra money on the table to sustain the network—that fact was drawn out in earlier exchanges that other hon. Members and I had with the shadow spokesman.
	In fact, the Conservative approach is worse, because the shadow spokesman failed even to match the Government's commitment to provide the £1.7 billion in subsidy and investment pledged to the post office network up to 2011. Not only is the motion hypocritical, but it is incoherent. The shadow spokesman started well but ended badly. Although he accepts that in this changing world, where an increase in online transactions has undoubtedly impacted on the Post Office's business, the network would shrink, he failed to tell the House what level of shrinkage would be acceptable to him.

Andy Reed: As my hon. Friend knows, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said during those earlier exchanges that he would look at the same number of closures. Many Labour Members have examined the Conservatives' position and feel, like my hon. Friend, that it offers nothing new. It is a disgrace to suggest that it contains something new. The Conservatives would provide no new money, they are making no further promises and their approach is disingenuous to constituents, whose hopes may have been raised.

Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Conservatives' position gets far worse, but that will have to wait until I tease out aspects of the James review later in my contribution.
	I found the attitude of the Conservatives' motion not only hypocritical and incoherent, but profoundly cynical and dishonest. How can they will the ends but not provide the means? How can they accept that closures are inevitable, but fail to put a number on how many branches should close? Let us also bear a history lesson in mind. Some 3,500 post offices closed under the previous Conservative Administration and, to my certain knowledge, Tory MPs in Berkshire campaigned to defend their local post offices at that time, so how can they criticise Labour and Liberal MPs for wanting to do precisely the same thing? That does not add up.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Martin Salter: No. Before I criticise the further irresponsible tactics of the Opposition on this issue, may I just say how much I appreciated the thoughtful suggestions made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and other hon. Members as to how the post office network could be better organised? I hope that rather than defending the barricade in this debate, Ministers will take on board some of the suggestions that have come from all parts of the House.
	On profitability, we know that only 4,000 of the 14,000 post offices can survive without some form of annual subsidy and that annual subsidy is running at about £159 million a year. We know that the size of the network is likely to shrink, and that shrinkage has been reluctantly supported by the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which the Conservatives pray in aid from time to time. We also know that 3,500 post offices have closed under previous Administrations, when not a penny piece of subsidy was provided to support the network.
	No one should support the Tory motion, because there is no hiding place for their arguments while they remain light on policy and financially free in their commitments. There is not a Tory MP who was not elected on the pledge to cut public expenditure in line with the James review. Only this week, we read that James is alive and well. I note that it was claimed on 17 March:
	"David Cameron is to salvage a Tory plan to cut government spending by £12bn that formed the centrepiece of Michael Howard's 2005 general election campaign.
	In a sign of his determination to cut taxes, Cameron has authorised his shadow Treasury team to dust down the so-called James review of 2004-05, which identified £12bn of potential government savings."
	Said a Tory source:
	'"We are still committed to many aspects of the James review...It has some very sound ideas. Savings will go into the pot and will be used for tax cuts or spent elsewhere."'
	Not only are the Tories failing to match the existing commitment, but there is a very real prospect that budgets will be slashed still further.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree with Billy Hayes, the CWU general secretary, who says that we should not forget that the Conservatives tried to privatise the Post Office in 1994 and that the Lib Dems are now committed to selling off 50 per cent.? He also says that the Lib Dems are a right-wing party that will say leftist things in pursuit of a vote.

Martin Salter: I am aware of the battle royal in Brent between the political parties, and I could never be as horrible to the Lib Dems as my hon. Friend is, but I certainly acknowledge that they will say one thing in one place and something else in another.
	In Reading, West, we went through an especially tough time in 2004 with the network reinvention programme. Other hon. Members will also bear the scars of that time. In my constituency, we faced the proposed closure of branches in Lyon square, Whitley Wood, Beecham road and the Meadway—all areas of west Reading. But with the strong support of Postwatch and the engagement of the local community, and by focusing on two of the four branches that were clearly pushing at the envelope of the published criteria, we were able to achieve at least one success: we were able to stop the closure of the Whitley Wood branch in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. While I was not happy to see three post offices close, I accepted that at least the process had some integrity.
	That was in 2004. Let us fast forward to 2008. One of the arguments that allowed the Post Office to go ahead with the closure of the Meadway branch—I realise that the names will mean little to other hon. Members—was the fact that there was another branch within one mile, in Wantage road, also in my constituency, and we had to accept that argument. How surprised was I to find, in 2008, that as part of the current programme the Wantage Road branch was scheduled for closure, along with a branch at Lower Tilehurst in Kentwood Hill. Like any good constituency MP, I sprang into action. We have all done it, and other hon. Members will do it when it happens in their constituencies. I raised the petitions, lobbied Postwatch and tested the proposals against the criteria. Once again, I thought we had a case on at least one of the branches.
	Let this be a warning to everybody engaged in this process. I wrote to the regional chair of Postwatch, having measured the distances, considered the deprivation indices, and examined the promises that had been made before about additional counters to deal with queuing as a result of the previous closures in 2004. I wrote:
	"The criteria which the Post Office use to determine whether or not to close a local post office is whether people have another post office within one mile, except in areas of significant deprivation. In these areas post offices can remain open if the residents live less than a mile from another branch. The Dee Road estate is in part served by the Wantage Road Post Office and significant data is available from Reading Borough Council to demonstrate that this is an area of deprivation. Should Wantage Road be closed, some areas of Dee Road Estate"—
	that deprived estate in my constituency—
	"would be 1.2 or 1.3 miles away from their nearest post office."
	In addition, it was proposed that a post office at the bottom of an extremely steep hill with an intermittent bus service would be closed. The replacement post office was already overcrowded, with many pensioners queuing out into the street. We had been promised additional counters in 2004, but they did not appear—certainly not as regularly as we wanted.
	We challenged the fact that no account had been taken of additional housing that was being built in the local community, with another 400 new chimney pots coming on stream—another 400 potential customers. I believe that we had put together a strong and powerful argument and I was confident, as I was in 2004, that we could deliver—or save—at least one of those post offices.
	Our consultation closed on 31 January. There were reasons to be cheerful on 15 February, because the letter arrived from Postwatch. In my view, it could not have been clearer. It said: "Postwatch has very serious reservations about the consequences of the closure of the Wantage Road post office. We have received numerous concerns from customers and the local MP"—that is me—"with particular reference to Postwatch's responsibility"—this is important—"for vulnerable individuals and communities. We ask Post Office Ltd to reconsider this closure proposal, affecting as it does a relatively deprived area characterised by low incomes, high unemployment and a high proportion of social and special needs housing." We had it in black and white. It was not unreasonable to assume that that would be taken to review and that we had a good chance of saving that post office.
	The reviews were then announced, and it turned out that Postwatch did not mean what it said. Although it expressed serious reservations and had asked for reconsideration, it had failed to trigger the formal process. The lesson for hon. Members is that if they get Postwatch on their side—and they need to—they should please make sure that it means what it says. Weasel words alone will not save a branch in any of our constituencies.
	Finally, throughout the process the local Liberals remained silent. We do not have too many of them in west Reading, so there was no danger of their colonising the issue. The local Conservatives were noisy but spectacularly irrelevant. As I said earlier, my opposite number, the Tory candidate, launched a campaign a month before the publication of the closure programme to save three branches in Southcote, Purley and Hildens drive that were never at risk and were never going to be at risk. Yet he and his campaign failed even to lodge an objection with Postwatch or to engage in the campaign to help those branches that were earmarked for closure. This is the sort of irresponsible behaviour that has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), and means that local people, pensioners and disabled people who rely on their post office to provide vital services end up frightened and distressed.
	Scaremongering and unnecessarily frightening pensioners in my constituency is no substitute for good, honest campaigning. The dishonesty, incoherence and hypocrisy in the Conservative motion are no substitute for honest politics and there is no case for going into the Lobby tonight for the Conservative party.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I judge that on such an occasion it might be more important for hon. Members to be able to get something on the record rather than to have the full 12 minutes, so I propose with immediate effect to reduce the time limit to seven minutes. I hope that on that basis we should nearly get there.

Alan Reid: The Government's post office closure programme is a complete muddle. There is simply no logic in the choice of post offices to be axed, as an example from my constituency shows.
	Mine is a large rural constituency in the highlands and islands, but the Post Office decided to lump Argyll and Bute in with the Greater Glasgow area in its closure programme. I could not understand the logic of that at all. Originally, seven offices in my constituency were proposed for closure. That was bad enough, but it could have been worse and the customers of the other offices breathed sighs of relief.
	However, their relief was premature: as part of the consultation process, the Post Office decided to spare four offices elsewhere in the Greater Glasgow area. They all happened to be in Labour-held marginal constituencies—something that, if it happened by chance, was a remarkable coincidence.
	Those reprieves in Labour marginals meant that an extra four post offices were proposed for closure in a further so-called consultation process. One was the office serving the village of Clynder in my constituency. We still do not know the outcome of the further consultation, but the Clynder office is a typical village post office. The hub of the local community, it is in the same building as the village's only shop. Closing it is therefore bound to have an effect on the shop's business, so there are sound economic reasons for keeping it open.
	If the Clynder post office closes, it will—like all such closures—be to the detriment of village life. I simply do not understand why that office must be closed in order to spare an urban post office in a completely different environment. If the four post offices in Greater Glasgow that were originally considered eligible to be saved deserve it, that is fine and they should be saved. However, the Clynder office—which only last October was deemed worthy of staying open—should not be closed simply as a means to achieve the Government's artificial target of 2,500 closures.
	The postmaster at Clynder, Douglas Nicolson, has given 40 years of loyal service to the local community. He is a source of help and advice to all his customers. Such benefits cannot be measured in profit-and-loss terms, and I hope that the Post Office will relent and save the office at Clynder.
	Although some post offices in my constituency are facing the axe, that does not mean that the others can relax. There is concern about the long-term viability of all the ones that have escaped the axe, especially those in small communities. For example, the post office in the small village of St. Catherines in my constituency suddenly shut its doors a few weeks ago. I contacted the Post Office and was assured that it is actively seeking someone to take over the business, but several other offices in the highlands and islands have been in a similar position for a long time. I am therefore very concerned that the St. Catherines office may never be reopened and that, gradually and over time, many other post offices in small communities in my constituency may also close.
	The problem is that the Government must ensure that post offices are given enough business and support to remain viable. I hope that Ministers will provide an assurance at the end of today's debate that the offices that have escaped the axe in the current closure programme will have a secure future in the long term.
	In that respect, the successor to the Post Office card account is vital to the future of our post offices. The Government must ensure that the Post Office retains the contract when the current one expires in two years' time. Only the Post Office has the rural network needed to deliver the contract, and there must be no repeat of the TV licence fiasco. Then, the contract was taken away from the Post Office and given to PayPoint, a company that does not have a rural network that can match the Post Office's. For example, several islands in my constituency have a post office but no PayPoint outlet, with the result that TV viewers there cannot renew their licences over the counter.
	The future of the Post Office card account is a vital issue, but POCA must be given more facilities. It should be developed into a basic bank account with functions such as the ability to make cash deposits. That is the route that French and German post offices have gone down, and I hope that the Government will take this country down that route, too. A Post Office bank account with basic banking facilities would, I am sure, make the network sustainable and contribute towards meeting the Government's aims as regards financial inclusion. I hope that the Government will adopt that as the long-term solution.
	As for today's debate, I will certainly support the motion calling for a suspension of the post office closure programme. If the programme were suspended, it would allow the Essex proposals to be investigated, and it would give councils and local community groups the time to explore opportunities for sharing services with the post office, put together business plans and secure funding. I believe that there is scope for making savings by sharing post office services with the services of councils and other local agencies. I hope that hon. Members will support the motion, as that will allow time for all the options to be explored.

Geraldine Smith: Not only do I have a constituency interest in the debate, but I worked for the Post Office for 18 years. Indeed, for a time I worked in the chairman's office, answering MPs' letters, and I am very glad that I am not there now, because I am sure that I would have had quite a few.
	I received a letter from the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), the shadow Minister for postal affairs. I ask him not to make a habit of sending me letters. I have enough problems with my own party's Whips without the Opposition trying to whip me, too. However, I will be supporting the motion; I have given the matter careful consideration. I support the wording, but I detect a whiff of hypocrisy from the Conservative party on reinvestment in the network. If the Conservatives were in government, postal services would be in a worse position. I know that because I had to fight, along with the Secretary of State for Health, who led a magnificent campaign, to save Morecambe post office—a Crown post office—and a post office in Lancaster from closure when the Conservatives were in power. Indeed, they tried to privatise Royal Mail and the rest of the Post Office, so I will take no lessons from them on what we should do to save the network. However, I have read the motion, and the wording mirrors my thoughts on the issue, so for that reason only, I will support it.

Alan Simpson: My hon. Friend speaks for many Labour Members who have engaged with the consultation and worked with local communities and local authorities only to be ignored, and who have had the support of Postwatch only for that to be ignored. I wrote to Allan Leighton, too, only to get a reply from the woman who sent out the original closure notice. The fundamental issue at stake is how Parliament holds the Post Office to account for a closure programme that makes no sense.

Geraldine Smith: Yes, I agree completely. The consultation has been a complete sham. I think that everyone in the House agrees with that. On the post office closures, I have not been able to get commercial information relating to my constituency from the Post Office. There is a village post office that is open for two mornings a week, and the village would settle for one morning a week, but the Post Office will not tell me how much that would cost. One of the post offices in my constituency, on Kellet road in Carnforth, is a viable office; I know that because I know the sub-postmistress personally. She has given me the information and there is no way that that office should be closing.

David Taylor: I declare an interest: I am from the fourth generation of a post office family, and have two post offices closing in my constituency in the next few days, including one in my home village. My hon. Friend talks about figures; the Government tell us that the average saving from each of the 2,500 closures is £18,000. That is a total of £45 million, which does not lop off a substantial amount from the subsidy that is allegedly needed to keep the post office network going. Does she agree that over the next few years, irrespective of what happens, there will be further economic closures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is an abuse to take so much time on an intervention when we are very tight for time and many hon. Members who have been in the Chamber for the entire debate are waiting to speak.

Geraldine Smith: The key to helping the post office network survive is making sure that new business is found for it. We talk about the subsidy for the Post Office. Let us have fewer consultants across Government Departments. We could save a fortune.
	It is wrong that viable post offices are being closed. That is clearly what is happening in some cases. That information is not being made available to Members of Parliament. As I said, I have asked the Post Office for the information but it has still not given it to me. That is wrong.
	Another office in my constituency, Nether Kellet, is a village shop—the last shop in the village. If that office closes, the nearest one, although it may be within the recommended distance, is very hard to get to because there is no direct public transport. No thought has been given to the proposals by the Post Office. That is why we should take a step back and rethink them.
	I have concerns also about the Crown office network and what will happen to that. Crown offices across the country give a reliable service to the public. The staff are highly trained and we must be careful that we are not franchising them out. We should ensure that they are protected.
	I saw a press release from the Communication Workers Union and I agree with what it says. It calls on the Government
	"to suspend the deeply unpopular closure programme and provide lasting investment to secure the future of the Post Office network".
	However, the union also says that it is
	"concerned that the Conservative Party does not have the best interests of the network at heart, as its policy effectively calls for it to be dismantled".
	Let us have a bit of honesty in the debate. Let us not have complete opportunism from the Opposition.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who has already demonstrated in her career that she is a Member of principle. Tonight she is yet again doing the right thing, unlike many of her colleagues.
	The Post Office proposes to close a third of the post office network in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—five post offices in Bognor Regis and one in Littlehampton. The truncated consultation process has caused a real problem. We have had petitions and public demonstrations. We held a public meeting in Littlehampton which someone from the Post Office attended, but when a big public meeting was held in Bognor Regis, where five post offices are to close, no one from the Post Office was able to attend. Why? Because they were busy attending public meetings in London. If that consultation period had been longer, the Post Office would have had people available to come to Bognor Regis.

James Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) that the length of consultation does not make much difference if the consultation was a complete sham?

Nick Gibb: My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. The view is shared by many people in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the whole consultation process is a sham and that no notice will be taken by the Post Office of the views of local residents. The fact that no one from the Post Office attended that public meeting in Bognor Regis compounds that view. The Select Committee said of the process:
	"The lack of transparency also leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the consultation among local residents, and has engendered the belief that the public consultations are a sham."
	The branches proposed for closure in my constituency are in areas where a high proportion of the residents are elderly or very elderly, by which I mean over the age of 85. The Craigweil-on-Sea branch serves a population in which 38 per cent. are retired and the Aldwick branch serves a population in which 36 per cent. are retired. Nearly 40 per cent. of the residents of Aldwick and Craigweil are over the age of 65 and 5 per cent. are over 85.
	In Littlehampton the Beach branch in Norfolk road serves a population in which 27 per cent. are retired, more than a quarter are over the age of 65 and more than
	"one in five people have a Limiting Life Long illness."
	The people who use the Norfolk road branch tend to be very elderly people who live close by and who can just walk the short distance to the post office and the grocery store, but no further. As the Select Committee report said:
	"We have had numerous complaints that proposals failed to take account...of high concentrations of elderly or disabled people living close to offices scheduled for closure."

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. I speak for Henley, where we face closures in Stanton St. John and Crowmarsh Gifford, but the closure of post offices affects the elderly population not only in rural communities; I also have direct experience of the issue in London, where elderly people are being deprived of vital services. By closing post offices, we not only deprive the elderly of those services, but rip out the lynchpin of the local economy. That applies not only in the villages, for which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to respect the fact that we must have short interventions.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. He will make a great advocate for London, and I wish him all the very best.
	It is clear that the Post Office has failed to take into account high concentrations of the elderly and very elderly. The very elderly tend to have abandoned the use of a car, owing to failing eyesight or poor general health, and they struggle to make their way to their local shops and post office on foot, by wheelchair or by scooter. Travelling to the next nearest post office will be impossible for many elderly residents. The next nearest post office to Craigweil is at Rose Green, and getting there would mean walking nearly a mile along a route parts of which have no footpath.
	Residents in the Beach area of Littlehampton will find themselves having to use the main Crown post office in Littlehampton if the Beach branch is closed. As well as being difficult to get to from there, Littlehampton's Crown post office is notorious for its lengthy and time-consuming queues; that is consistent with other Crown post offices around the country. The Select Committee said:
	"Queuing times at Crown Offices were longer than in most franchised operations (a consideration for frailer customers)".
	If the Beach branch is to close, I hope that Post Office Ltd will give an undertaking to put extra staff in Crown post offices and provide seating and help for elderly and disabled customers.
	Public transport in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is very poor. Many of the bus services that do exist are infrequent and depend on subsidies from West Sussex county council; those are often reviewed and services are often withdrawn. If the Hawthorn Road and South Bersted branches closed, a large area of residential Bognor Regis would be devoid of any post office branch. Part of that area encompasses two of the most deprived wards in west Sussex; only one third of residents in Pevensey, for example, own a car. Given poor public transport, there is great reliance on post offices remaining local. Closing those two branches would present real difficulties for many residents in the area.
	Like many towns in the area, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have grown from smaller communities that have merged over time. The Beach Town area of Littlehampton was a separate town until development joined it to the rest of Littlehampton. The small parade of shops in that area is a community in itself. If we lose the post office branch run by Bharti and Raj Shah at the back of the grocery store, and if the grocery store goes as well, we will lose the hub of a community in Littlehampton. The same will happen if we lose the post office in Craigweil, which has a parade of shops near the sea and which is cut off from other parts of Bognor Regis. If we lose the shop and the post office, which is run by Barbara and Robin Doe, the whole hub of that community will go as well.
	In conclusion, the proposed closure plan for the post office network of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton involves a third of the branches—almost double the national figure of 18 per cent. The area has a much higher proportion of the elderly and very elderly, who are the section of the population most dependent on the existence of a locally sited post office. Although the Post Office will have recorded the proportion of retired people living in the area, the closure programme has not taken into account the numbers of very elderly people. I urge the House to support the Opposition motion this evening, to suspend the compulsory closure of the sub-post office network.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). Many of the characteristics of his constituency also apply to mine, in that we have the third highest number of over-85-year-olds of any constituency in the country.
	The first few words of the amendment say that the Government
	"recognises the vital social and economic role of post offices, in particular in rural and deprived urban communities".
	Let us see how they live up to that pledge in the Cotswolds. With a nationwide loss of 18 per cent. of post offices, the Cotswolds region is losing 12 of its branches—four completely and eight through outreach. That is a quarter of its post office network. Many local businesses depend on their post office. The bus service in the Cotswolds is, in many cases, almost non-existent, so this will hit the elderly and vulnerable particularly hard. Eleven of those 12 post offices—I would like the Minister particularly to listen to this point—have a shop attached to them. If the story first broken in  The Daily Telegraph is true and the Post Office intends to restrict the business that those shops are allowed to offer as a result of the post office closing, because it might duplicate what the post office originally offered, that would be a further devastating and possibly destabilising blow wreaked by the Government on the highly rural areas in my constituency.

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend's description of his constituency mirrors much of the experience in mine, where local shops would also close. Moreover, the absence of alternative financial services outlets, with very few banks, means that the post office provides access to financial services for some of the most vulnerable in our community. With that gone, the whole financial inclusion agenda is in serious trouble in rural areas.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As always, my hon. Friend makes pertinent points on behalf of his constituents. He looks after them very well in this House, and he has done so again on this occasion. I entirely agree with what he said.
	The closures have resulted in the biggest single constituency campaign that I have dealt with in 16 years as a Member of Parliament. I have received more than 500 letters, all of which have been summarised, and 12 separate representations had been made to Post Office Ltd at the end of the closure of the consultation period at the beginning of this week, with copies sent to the Minister. I have organised eight well-attended public meetings, and we had a march in the centre of Cirencester at which 500 residents turned up to demonstrate about the fact that if a vast number of extra people have to go to the Crown post office in Cirencester, it will not be able to cope.
	I want to provide the Minister with a brief rural tour of the Cotswolds to demonstrate some of the problems with the consultation, beginning with the very northern and southern edges of my constituency, on the Worcestershire-Warwickshire boundary in the case of Weston-sub-Edge, and on the Wiltshire boundary in the case of Meysey Hampton. The problem there is that because the consultation was done for different areas in different parts of the country, and neither Worcestershire, Warwickshire nor Wiltshire has yet been reviewed, residents are having their post office closed without knowing what the future of the post office in the adjoining county is going to be. I believe that the Government and the Post Office have deliberately staggered the closure programme on that basis to avoid the national outcry that would otherwise take place.
	I should like now to go to the most rural part of my constituency—Temple Guiting and Guiting Power. Those two villages expected that one of their post offices would close and were completely taken aback when they both closed. One of those post offices has just two hours of outreach. I have made representations to the Post Office and to the Minister about the alterations that could be made to that outreach. Will he comment on how it is going to be funded, how long it is likely to last, and what provisions there will be to review it once it is in place and we find that it is not working as well as it might? Those two villages will be joined by residents from Longborough, who are extremely vociferous about their closure, and Blockley, where they are trying to form a co-operative village shop in order to keep their post office open.
	In the highly likely event that any of the residents affected by all five closures find themselves needing a post office out of outreach hours, they will be forced to go to Bourton-on-the-Water, Stow or Moreton-in-Marsh. I defy the Minister, in the middle of a summer afternoon with a large influx of visitors, to find a car-parking space within two miles of those post offices.
	I come to two other rural post offices—those of Sherborne and Aldsworth. One of the young schoolchildren in Sherborne managed to get 200 names on a petition in just two hours, such is the strength of feeling in that village.
	In the limited time left to me, I want to talk about Cirencester, which currently has three branches: one Crown post office, and two sub-post offices. The two sub-post offices are Stratton, which serves 5,400 residents, and the Beeches, which serves 12,300 residents. In the case of Stratton, at my well-attended public meeting of 250 people—I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind—the sub-postmaster, John Lafford, reported two amazing facts. These are on the public record. In January alone, he had a turnover of £468,000—in just one month—and he was offered a payment of £100,000 if he took the post office closure payment, but he wants to stay open because he enjoys serving the community. What a way to go about a closure programme. The Beeches serves 12,300 residents, with another 750 new houses about to be built, but it is scheduled for closure. Surely the Government can think of a more sensible programme than closing such profitable post offices, which is really the politics of the madhouse.
	If the closures go ahead, and the two closest post offices to Cirencester—Rendcomb and Colesbourne—are also closed, a population of 19,000 people in the town of Cirencester and the surrounding 21 villages, across 100 square miles, will be left with one inadequate Crown post office. I do not know of anywhere in the country where such a monstrous proposal is in place. I ask the Minister if he will seriously reconsider the proposals, particularly in the case of Cirencester.
	I end on this note. Much has been made in this debate about the services that have been run down in our post offices, but I want to ask the Minister what positive proposals he has to introduce new services. I think that I was one of the first Members to mention the idea of having a broadband connection in every post office. If such a connection were provided, a huge amount of information would be available to all my constituents. It is amazing that even elderly constituents are becoming more computer literate every day—a surprising factor. With a little invention, the Post Office could offer a lot of other things. It could offer ATMs, which could be further refined so that they were compatible with the Post Office benefit card; benefit claimants could then draw cash from their own post office. A lot of services could be provided by the Post Office, and as other hon. Members have said, it should be much more free in the amount of services it allows sub-postmasters and mistresses to offer.
	In closing, I say to the Minister that the consultation is flawed. I am not a luddite. The system cannot remain exactly as it is, and it needs some rationalisation, but the way in which the Government have dealt with the consultation is flawed. It is wrong, and the wrong branches are being closed. I ask him to think again, particularly about the two branches in Cirencester.

Kate Hoey: I shall be very brief. Any member of the public reading the Opposition's motion would find it strange that anyone could vote against it, particularly those who are concerned about their own post offices and what is happening in their constituencies. The suspension of the compulsory closure of sub-post offices while all the issues are reassessed is common sense, and no one should feel that they are being disloyal to their party or the Government in voting for it.
	All of us feel strongly about the closure programme, and, as many hon. Members have said, this Parliament is ultimately responsible for the matter. I would have preferred a Government motion calling for such a suspension, which we could have supported, but it is an Opposition one, and I shall support it. As chair of the all-party group on post offices, I have done everything in my constituency absolutely by the book. London is in the middle of its very short consultation period—I am not sure whether that makes a lot of difference. A suspension would give us more time to oppose the closure of particular sub-post offices. I have gone through all the criteria for my Lambeth Walk post office on Vauxhall street. I have measured everything, had Postwatch down and held a public meeting. The local community is totally involved and supportive.
	Huge amounts of regeneration are coming into our area about which Royal Mail and the Post Office did not know. We are presenting all the information, including the deprivation figures and the fact that there are eight sheltered homes within a few hundred yards of the post office. It would be a disgrace if, under the existing criteria, the post office did not stay open. I will wait and see.
	I have done everything by the book and I am sure that that applies to many colleagues. By voting for the motion, we send a little signal, which tells the Government that they are responsible for determining the figures— arbitrary figures that have been plucked out of the air.
	Today, all sorts of ideas have been expressed about possible changes, including legal action that might happen in London, proposals that Essex and other local authorities have made, and the Government using the Post Office more and instructing the BBC to allow television licences to be bought in post offices. Many things can be done, but we need more time. The motion is sensible and I hope that many of my colleagues will join me in the Lobby tonight.

David Evennett: I am pleased that we are holding a debate on a subject of considerable concern to my constituents and I am glad that I can make a brief contribution to it.
	I was disappointed in the Secretary of State's speech, which failed to deal with the genuine concerns of all our constituents about the changes in the postal service. I congratulate my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on a constructive and logical approach to examining those issues and highlighting the flaws in the action that is being taken.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made a speech that I strongly supported, which covered most of the issues that face suburban and Greater London post office closures. We hope that the Government will listen today and propose a rethink. We also hope that the Post Office will suspend the closure programme to consider the possible alternatives. For example, we have discussed Essex county council's proposal, which could ameliorate the problems.
	In the past few years in Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have lost many of our sub-post offices—in Barnehurst, Lesnes Abbey, Brampton and on the boundary between Barnehurst and Collier's ward. Today, we are threatened with yet another closure in the Brampton ward of my constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, we have experienced the closure of a popular and busy post office and its relocation to the upstairs of WH Smith in the centre of the town. It has just opened, and we were genuinely worried about the relocation because of the lifts, the staff, the location and mobility problems for those who are disabled or have children in pushchairs and prams. We will wait and see how it works out.
	I want to highlight the Brampton road post office, which is threatened. Its closure is subject to consultation. It opens for 51 hours a week and completes between 750 and 990 transactions a week at its two service positions. It has level access, provides euros on demand and has an external ATM facility. There is unrestricted parking and a bus stop 100 yd away. Many of those who use the post office are pensioners who do not own a car and do not find mobility easy. The closure of the branch would cause genuine hardship to people in and around the area that I represent in Brampton. There are alternative branches, but they are a considerable distance away—in Long lane, which is more than a mile away, and Wroughton road, which is two thirds of a mile away. They are open for less time and do not have easy access via buses.
	On Friday 22 February, we held some meetings in my local office with representatives of Post Office Ltd to discuss the proposed closure. I made strong points about the disadvantage it would cause local people. Of course we understand that the Government have been responsible for reducing the Post Office's opportunities to serve the community—that has been well discussed this afternoon, so I will not repeat those points.
	One of the issues raised by Melanie Corfield, who is head of external relations for the south-east, was the opportunities for new products that the Post Office wants to promote. One of those, which was in its business plan, was financial services. The Post Office extolled the new bond backed by the Bank of Ireland, which it hoped people would buy, thereby creating new development services for it. However, I made the point, strongly and forcefully, that it was difficult for people to get to post offices and therefore difficult for them to use the new services. If post offices are not in communities, there will obviously be a disincentive for people who do not have cars or easy mobility to take up those new opportunities.
	There are serious concerns about closing branches without considering the needs of local communities. Many local businesses are also concerned about the loss of a facility that they use. I had meetings with many local shopkeepers and businesses that were great users of the services offered by the Brampton road branch. They were concerned about how their businesses would suffer if the branch closed.

Greg Mulholland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Evennett: I intend no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, but we do not have much time and I know that everyone wants to get in. I therefore feel obliged not to take any interventions.
	The decisions to close local post offices are misguided and will ultimately damage the Post Office's business and its reputation. The consultation exercise, which I raised in an intervention on the Secretary of State, is flawed and a sham. Previous consultations, which were well supported by my constituents who want to keep the branch open, have been ignored and rejected by the Post Office. Logical and reasonable arguments about why a post office should remain—because of business, pensioners, transport, distance or community—have all received a blanket rejection.
	It is no wonder that people feel disengaged from community political activity, when they feel that their voices are not being heard. The fear remains that the Post Office and the Government, who control the service, are out of touch. Both will suffer if we do not place a moratorium on the closures and consider the alternatives. The issue is important throughout the country, no more so than in my constituency and across suburbia and Greater London. The Government should think again.

Richard Benyon: I shall try to be as brief as I can. I start by declaring an interest. I own a building that contains a post office that is due to be closed under the network change programme.
	Five post offices in my constituency face closure. I disagree with every decision, as one would expect, but in every case I can find flaws in the process and many reasons why the post offices should not close. Two of the post offices proposed for closure are in urban areas; one of them is in Thatcham, an area that suffered the worst flooding in south-east England last July. The community faces not only the closure of its post office, but an enormous influx of new housing, through the redevelopment of an Army base that was vacated some years ago. It seems quite bizarre that the community in south Thatcham should face that closure.
	Other branches are in rural settings, including in the village where I live. I have been using that post office since I could walk, and probably since before then. The anger and frustration at the lack of thought and understanding, and—as I shall explain if I have time—at the lack of humanity behind the process has been profoundly felt by the many thousands of people throughout the community who will be directly affected and by the many more who will be indirectly affected.
	I had a pyrrhic victory in this process at the start of the consultation, in which we virtually got the consultation period extended. In an act that perhaps exemplifies the incompetence with which all this has been done, the Government decided that the six-week consultation period should include Christmas. Post offices are, of course, extremely busy at that time, and people have other things on their mind.
	I would love to use my few minutes to rant and rail against what I perceive to be the wickedness of this decision. That might be cathartic, but it would not be particularly illuminating. To me, this is about much more than the provision of postal services or of post offices in communities. It is about the communities themselves. Those who oppose the motion tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) today will be demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what makes a community, and of the complex web of relationships and interactions that are the fabric of those communities.
	Later this year, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 will come into force. I was proud to be a sponsor of that legislation. This is precisely the kind of issue that it was intended to address, and it had universal support across the House. It seems bizarre that the Government, knowing that the Act is about to come into force, cannot delay this process so that local communities can be empowered to make these decisions. That was precisely the purpose of the Act.
	The closure programme fits into a pattern. I have bored the House at length on such matters in the past. In fact, my first faltering utterances in this place were about the loss of shops, churches, pubs—for which the Budget sounded another death knell last week—and sporting organisations. I spoke of how they had all been sucked out of smaller communities and moved into towns, and out of smaller towns into larger towns. Every community suffers as a result, as its life blood is sucked out.
	We could shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, this is the way of things." That is very much what the Government have done. They have said that the internet has come in, that these post offices are not doing very well, and that that is just the way of things. Well, no. This is about vulnerable people, as has been pointed out by Members on both sides of the House. I have only to stand in the post office queue in Newbury—the queue is considerably longer following the suburban post office closure programme in 2005—to see just who those people are. They are the people who cannot buy online. They are the people who pay their soaring heating bills with hard-saved cash. In the Government's eyes, these people are inconvenient, because they will not conform. They will not go on the internet. They will not leap into a car and drive to the next town when their post office closes.
	People who live in rural communities and have the temerity to need services—which are, of course, now more expensive and harder to deliver—are also considered inconvenient. I am sure that there are those not far from this building who would like rural communities simply to be places where people sleep, rather than places where real life takes place and where services need to be delivered.
	I want to address the important issue of the access criteria. This has really frustrated me. The criteria have been calculated on an as-the-crow-flies basis. They do not take into account road networks or public transport facilities. The Government's need to hit their closure targets while also meeting the access criteria means that profitable post offices will close, simply because they are in the wrong location. I could take the Minister to post offices in my constituency that are not profitable but will survive. I will not do so, because they would probably then be zoned for closure as well. The lunacy of all this is that profitable post offices in my constituency are going to close. The access criteria, which involve drawing a straight line "as the crow flies", are utterly devoid of any understanding of how human beings really live and co-exist.
	As we have heard, the consultation has been a sham. In our case, it has been a fig leaf for a decision that had clearly already been taken. In my last few seconds, I must ask the Minister to address the one-for-one issue. Some weeks ago, I heard him say in this Chamber—I have heard it again today—that the figure involved was up to 2,500. In this building, I had a briefing from the people who were processing the network change programme in my constituency. They said, "If you managed to save a post office in your constituency, that would be fantastic, but we would have to find another one."
	Let me finish with a big plea for the bullying of postmasters and postmistresses in my constituency to stop. If they have put in a pay point, replacing the loss of a post office, they have done so for the vulnerable in the community. Nobody else but the most vulnerable is going to use it. They should not be threatened for doing that; the bullying must stop.

Gordon Prentice: I shall be very brief, but I want it put on the record that I will vote for the Conservative motion this evening. I can see nothing wrong with it. I read it through two or three times in case I was missing something. I see nothing in it that my friends or colleagues on this side cannot vote for. I listened with interest, as I always do, to my friend from Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who spent 18 years working in the Post Office. She will be voting with the Conservatives. I am pleased to see my friend from Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who chairs the all-party sub-post offices group and will also be voting with the Conservatives. There is no need for anyone on this side to feel at all frightened about the prospect of voting with the Conservatives. Let me explain that it is the only option left open to us. It is the only option we have left to stop or suspend the closure programme.
	Let me tell you this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I participated in a Westminster Hall debate with my Lancashire colleagues, including my friend from Morecambe and Lunesdale. In Lancashire, we face 59 closures and many of my friends spoke about that in the debate. I spoke, too. If I did not vote for the Conservative motion now, I could not look my constituents in the eye; I simply could not, because I railed against the closure programme in that debate. It is no good my colleagues, tucked away in Westminster Hall, speaking with great passion on 4 March only to fail to support the motion before us tonight. My own constituency is losing six post offices. Since I have been its Member of Parliament, we have lost 10. We started out with 28, so the post office network in my Pendle constituency will have been more than halved, which is unacceptable.
	Now is not the time to slag off the Conservatives—[Hon. Members: "Go on!"] I spend so much of my life doing that, I know, but this is not the time. Let me say this, however. The Conservatives would get more support from the Labour Benches if they were more open with us about the level of subsidy that they would put into the post office network. My friend on the Front Bench here has told us—he told us in Westminster Hall on 4 March as well—that only 4,000 post offices are commercially viable. We have a network of 14,000, which is going down to 11,500, so post offices will always need to be subsidised.
	I believe that post offices are a social good. They are not just about selling people stamps. The network could not be recreated; if it were smashed, it could not be put together again. There are all sorts of exciting, innovative things we could do with a revivified post office network. Let me finish on this point. I hope that my friends swallow the prejudices of decades or whatever and do the right thing, which is to support the Conservative motion.

David Burrowes: rose—

Gordon Prentice: I give way to my friend over there.

David Burrowes: In that context, will he invite all three Enfield MPs, who have been united in wanting to save the area's six post offices, to join together in the Conservative Lobby this evening?

Gordon Prentice: Anyone who is serious about trying to save the post offices in their constituency—whether it be in Enfield or anywhere else—has to vote in favour of the motion.

David Heath: We learned three weeks ago how many closures Somerset would face. The figures are very clear: in the present Somerset county council area, 30 will close, with another seven downgraded; in the historic county of Somerset, a further 18 will close, making a total of 55 closures across Somerset. Anyone who wants to know what villages are involved could find them in my early-day motion 1036.
	I shall concentrate on the seven direct closures in my constituency—in Bayford, Bower Hinton, Holcombe, Keinton Mandeville, Kingsdon, Sparkford and Yeovilton—and two that will be replaced by a van service in Charlton Horethorne and North Cadbury. I feel that I have been fighting the same campaign for 20 or more years—in the House, previously as a county councillor or before that as someone involved in local community politics. It seems to me that we are seeing a constant reduction in the post office network.
	I know that there were 3,500 closures under the Conservative Government, but I think that the main reason for that was neglect. Now it is happening by design: we are deliberately closing down large parts of the rural post office network. I hear Labour Members talk of the "stability" of the network. It is a strange sort of stability that closes 6,500 sub-post offices. At medical school I used to be told that there was a difference between stability and morbidity. What the Government are proposing is the stability of a corpse. Through a process of bullying and moving business away from post offices, they have created circumstances in which they can say that those post offices are not profitable and must be closed down. I thought that we had won the battle for rural post offices back in 2002. How wrong I was—that was only a temporary lull before the storm that we now face.
	We know from what has happened so far that public opinion is not enough. We can collect all the signatures that we like. Four million people signed a petition against post office closures, but it did not mean a thing. We can organise local petitions—every parish council in my constituency signed a petition that I presented to the House—and they do not mean a thing. All our local petitions and letters do not mean a thing, because the Government have decreed that the closures will go ahead.
	I do not think the Government understand why we fight so strongly for local post offices. There are all the social reasons which we have heard already today. We have heard about the people who do not have the comfortable option of getting into their second Volvo to drive to the next town because they do not have that second Volvo, or even the first, and could not drive it if they had it because they are elderly or infirm. Those people cannot find a substitute for the local post office. They do not want their money to be paid into a bank account, because they have never worked on the basis of a bank account. I think the yuppie Ministers have forgotten that there are people in this country who still budget on a week-by-week basis with cash in hand. That is the way those people want to stay, and they need their sub-post offices.
	There is, for instance, the community aspect of post offices. The post office is the centre of many village communities, and in many instances it is all that we have left. It is not just postal services that are affected, but all the other activities that are centred on the post office, which is often the last shop in the village. I have been considering the effect of the planned closures in my constituency. As a result of the closure in Bower Hinton, people will have to walk two to three miles to Martock, down a steep hill which they will have to climb up when they return. The post office is the last shop in Bower Hinton, so that is in danger as well. When those people arrive in Martock they will find a very successful little post office, but one with permanent queues which is unable to provide any further capacity. Where is the logic in that? Where, moreover, is the environmental logic? We are supposed to have a joined-up Government who take the environment seriously. Where is the environmental logic in people having to drive for miles to reach a post office?
	Holcombe has sheltered housing directly opposite the post office, but apparently Post Office Ltd was not aware of it. The post office has always provided a prescription service for the local surgery, and that too will go. As for Kingsdon, I went to a public meeting there at 9 o'clock on Saturday morning. More than 100 people were there; practically everyone in the village had gone to make their point. They were irate, because one of the things that the Post Office had said in the letter it had sent was that there was an alternative in Yeovilton. There are two problems with that alternative. First, it is on the royal naval air station base. People could not get past the two large Marines with machine guns at the gates, but even if they could, Yeovilton is one of the other post offices that are due to close, so it is not a great alternative.
	Charlton Horthorne and North Cadbury have been offered a van alternative. Vans are great—I would love to see mobile post offices dealing with many of the communities that have already lost their post offices—but the problem is that there is no commitment beyond three years, so we will lose our permanent post offices in return for the promise of a mobile service that may disappear.
	We have six weeks in which to make all those points, and we have been told that we will not have a result at the end of that period because of local elections. As we are not due to have any local elections in Somerset, we understand perfectly well that this is another example of the Government trying to cover their backs.
	The key issue is whether we regard post offices purely as commercial undertakings or as a public service. I regard them as a public service. When I hear people say that a particular post office has a small number of customers, I think that for those people it is an essential service, and it does not matter that they live in the country rather than, as would be convenient, in a big city. They should have access to the services that they need. When I am told that post offices have to make a profit, I wonder whether that will soon apply to our schools, roads and our military involvement in Basra. Must they make a profit, or else be closed down? Perhaps we should look at those post offices as a genuine people's post office. What an insult to run that campaign, when the post office is anything but the people's post office. It is the Minister's plaything, and it provides a profit for Post Office Ltd.
	We do not ask for much in our rural areas, but we rely on our village hall, our village school, our village shop and our village post office. I do not think that is too much to ask, and we should keep those post offices open as a genuine people's post office and a service for the people of this country.

David Jones: Given the limited time available, I shall refrain from criticising the illogicality and stupidity of the network change programme, because any credibility that it ever possessed has been comprehensively demolished by Members on both sides of the House.
	I shall focus my attention on the impact that the programme is likely to have on my constituency. The closure programme for north Wales has not yet been announced, because of the politically motivated purdah imposed by the Post Office. It will be announced in July this year but, given the pattern that is evident across the country, post offices in my constituency will certainly close. I should like to draw the House's attention to circumstances in the southern part of my constituency, which largely consists of scattered villages. They may well fall within the three-mile limit of the rather silly access criteria in the programme, but as few people fly as the crow does, they are, in fact considerably further apart. I should like to use the village of Pentrefoelas as an example. Its post office will not necessarily close, but the post office in the village of Llanarmon yn Ial may well close, as may post offices in Llanfalteg, Llansanan, Llangernyw and any other village in the immediate vicinity.
	Pentrefoelas is not untypical, and its post office is operated by Mr. Mark Tuck and Ms Sonia Taylor. It is a profitable business, and it is combined with the only shop in the village—it, too, is profitable—and a small guest house, which is also profitable. Unless those three profitable businesses are operated together, there is not sufficient business to maintain an income for the postmaster and his wife. Pentrefoelas is a village of 300 people, most of whom are elderly and many of whom do not have motor cars. The nearest village is Cerridgydrudion, which is about 6 miles away by road. If the closure programme hit Pentregoelas, the people who live there would be obliged to travel by road to Cerridgydrudion. The comments of some of the residents Pentrefoelas are telling. Miss Rita Davies, who is 79, said:
	"The nearest post office from here is Cerridgydrudion, which is six miles away. I would have to get a community taxi, costing in the region of £5, as the bus service is not very good."
	Mrs. Linda Bolger said:
	"As a single parent with five children and no transport, I rely heavily on the post office to cash my giros, and the local shop for buying bread...The closure would affect me greatly."
	Perhaps most tellingly, Mrs. Maureen Rice said that the closure of the post office
	"would mean the end of village life."
	In the past few years, rural communities in Wales have suffered a great deal as a result of the downturn in agriculture, most recently following foot and mouth disease. They have sustained school closures, and they have experienced rising fuel prices. In fact, over the past few years the stuffing has been knocked out of village life in rural Wales. The rural post office—in most cases, the only shop in the village—is the last bastion of rural life in many parts of Wales, but the residents of rural Wales now see it being removed. That will have an effect not only on the cohesion of communities, but on other things in Wales, too, such the culture and the Welsh language, which is very important. In those circumstances, I find it odd that the Government's amendment to the motion purports to recognise
	"the vital social and economic role of post offices, in particular in rural and deprived urban communities"
	because in my constituency it is precisely those communities that will suffer at the hands of this programme.
	I am glad that some Labour Members will join the Conservatives in the Lobby this evening. It is evident that many more than those who have spoken in the debate support the general thrust of the motion; in fact, 35 have already signed early-day motion 997, and, as we know, several Ministers, including Cabinet Ministers, are lobbying actively for the retention of post offices in their constituencies.
	This is probably the single most important issue I have experienced since I was first elected to this place. It has attracted more consternation, anxiety and worry than almost any other. I am glad that there are Labour Members of principle who will join us Conservatives in the Lobby this evening. I hope that many more do, and that the Post Office receives a signal from the House this evening that this sham programme is utterly unacceptable and that it is damaging to the social fabric of this country, and that the Post Office and the Government will have to think again.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: As time is very limited, if Members limit their speeches to three minutes, more of them may be able to catch my eye.

Mark Hendrick: I begin by referring to a letter from the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). It was addressed to me, but at the top of the letter it says, "Dear Gordon". I think the hon. Gentleman must be confusing me with the Prime Minister. If I did not find it amusing to be sent such a ridiculous letter, I would find it offensive.
	Many Members have talked about the impact of technology on the use of postal services—for example, people can now buy their road tax disc over the internet. However, I recently went to a post office in London to try to buy my television licence, and I was told that I had to go to a PayPoint. It is ridiculous that the Post Office is not still doing a deal with the television licence people so that we can get our licences at post offices.
	I do not think any Members are in favour of post office closures, but what we are in favour of is the best use of resources and maximising the economic and social benefits for our constituents. I can therefore see that the many Members representing rural constituencies who have argued for the retention of post offices have a strong case. In urban areas such as mine, I can perhaps see a case for the closure of the odd post office. Some post offices in and around Preston might be unprofitable, but it might also be too far to the next one. In particular, I make reference to Deepdale Road and Acregate Lane post offices and Moor Nook post office on Pope lane; they are popular and used by many people, but not all of them are profitable. The Opposition motion refers to 2,500 post offices being outlined for closure. I do not think there is any case for closing that many, but there would be a case for closing some of them. I would not expect this process to result in the closure of every post office that has been earmarked, and I include among them my own in Preston.
	Let me refer to another example of a petition, this one containing hundreds of names on the Manchester Road post office. I understand that there is a sign in its window saying, "Say no to closures". However, when my office rang that post office, its postmaster told us he does not want a campaign against closure. He is angry about people going round with a petition campaigning to keep his post office open, because he wants to take the £60,000 offered to close the post office in his property. There are two sides to the story. It is important that hon. Members value post offices and the services that they provide, but the case for no closures cannot be made.

Angela Watkinson: I shall be as brief as possible in order to allow colleagues to make some brief remarks. It was encouraging to hear that hon. Members in all parts of the House appreciate the importance of the branch network of the Post Office, given its social function as well as the Post Office functions. We seem to have complete consensus on that. Rather less encouraging has been the fact that the only vision that many, but by no means all, Labour Members seem to have for the future of the post office network lies in taxpayer subsidy. The whole point of the motion is to suspend the closure programme so that we can examine the possibility of providing additional business opportunities or additional functions for post offices, in order to expand what they are doing, rather than shrink them, as has been happening over the past few years.
	In 2004, my constituency suffered three closures as a result of the absurdly named "urban reinvention programme". Somebody—I do not know who—was probably paid a large sum to think up that name, which actually translated as, "We're going to close your post offices." My constituency now faces another three closures. The customers who suffered because of one of the first closures were sent to one of the post offices that is in the second round of closures. The distance to walk is much too far, in particular for elderly people. They cannot possibly walk 1 mile on a hill and then have to walk 1 mile back again. For elderly people or for young mothers with buggies and toddlers such distances are simply too far. I have spoken to a lot of elderly people who miss the social aspect of going to the post office every week. They now have to rely on neighbours, friends and family to go to the post office for them because it is no longer accessible for them.
	I should like to express my extreme disappointment in Postwatch. A week or so ago, London Members had a meeting with the Post Office—

Douglas Carswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government's plans? On the one hand, they argue that more than 2,000 post offices need to close for what they claim are rational economic reasons, but on the other hand, the decision about which post offices to shut is not made on the basis of whether the individual post office is itself viable. As a result, viable post offices, such as those at Walton-on-the-Naze and Kirby Cross in my constituency—I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituency contains similar examples—are being shut. Is that not totally inconsistent?

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend is right. I was expecting customer representation from Postwatch, but at the meeting to which I referred its representative set out the Government and the Post Office's plans and the reason for them. I began to think I was in the wrong meeting, because there was no pretence of representing the customer. Fortunately, I had another meeting to go to; otherwise it would have got quite heated. I do not know how much Postwatch costs—it is paid for by the taxpayer—but whatever it is, the money would be better spent on supporting the branch network.
	The consultation has been mentioned, and I discussed that with Postwatch and, subsequently, the Post Office. Both of them admitted that the consultation was not about whether people wanted their post office to close, because one could anticipate 100 per cent. of people saying that they did not want their post office to close. Postwatch told me that the post offices would be closed even if there was a 100 per cent. response. The Post Office said that the consultation was being undertaken to tease out whether or not the right ones were being closed. There is a great misunderstanding among post office users about the meaning of the consultation. The consultation is a sham, people feel cheated and I have no confidence that the petitions I am raising will have any more influence that the ones that I raised during the urban reinvention programme.

Mark Williams: Of necessity, I shall be brief, as I have to address the issue of six potential post office closures in my constituency in just three minutes. We have 62 post offices, more than any other constituency in Wales, and I want to talk about the social effects of closure on local communities.
	The irony is that, sitting in the post offices in Devil's Bridge and Pontrhydfendigaid are awards recognising the services given by the post offices to the local community, including services to the elderly and other businesses. They have also had a joint partnership with the Dyfed Powys police promoting the police force in what is a scattered community. The timing of this closure programme flies in the face of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which should empower local people to make decisions on their own post offices and to reflect on the services that they need. The timing is also against the National Assembly's re-enactment of a post office development fund, which will come into effect next year, after the post offices have gone. Commendable efforts have been made by county councils in England, such as Essex, and they warrant consideration.
	I am especially concerned about those businesses in which a post office and a shop operate together, such as in Talybont, Devil's Bridge, Llanfarian, Llangeitho, Llanddewi Brefi, Talgarreg and Pontsian. As the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) said, once the post office or shop goes, the heart of the community is taken away. The village hall, the pub and the garage have probably already gone, and little is left. It is an issue of social cohesion.
	My constituents have no alternatives. I look at the criteria and I am told that 95 per cent. of people live within three miles of an alternative. I had an e-mail from a constituent today whose nearest alternative will be a round trip of 15 miles, if she wishes to access basic core post office services.
	We hear a lot about urban deprivation, but the rural deprivation factor has not been taken into account. West Wales and the valleys are a convergence funding area for good reason. Large tracts of Ceredigion are also Communities First regions, comparable with any other deprived area in the country. We face three closures in those areas.
	We have heard about outreach. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about the three-year limit on the provision of services, but we are losing three outreach post vans. They were a sop to the community three years ago, but we are now losing them.

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend mentions several good reasons. The Far Headingley post office in my constituency is another profitable post office that will close. Services such as outreach have not been taken into account, and nor has the effect on local businesses that will also suffer. It is absurd that we are closing profitable businesses and failing to consider the effect on the community.

Mark Williams: My hon. Friend is right. In Ceredigion, we have the largest proportion of small businesses of anywhere in Wales, and they rely on the services of the post offices, including the expanded service that hon. Members have mentioned. It is also important to note the lack of public transport. It simply is not an option in large tracts of rural Wales, as well as much of England. Some 11 per cent. of rural households have no access to a car.
	The most dispiriting aspect of the debate—and I have been here since the start—is the sham consultation. Tomorrow night, in the community of Talybont, there will be a huge public meeting. I have started petitions and had meetings with the Post Office. I have been told that there is no domino effect and that if we save one, another will be closed. The most dispiriting aspect is that I will be collecting signatures and talking to managers, and the signatures and the words will fall on deaf ears. That is why the motion is important, and why a moratorium is critically important. That is why we have to continue to make the case. It is just like Beeching: in 30 years' time, people will be asking how we allowed this to happen.

Peter Soulsby: It may be that the Conservative motion is opportunistic and cynical, but I happen to agree with every word of it. In my constituency, the consultation on the closure of two post offices in Walnut street and Francis street—I do not have time to go into details of the devastation that would be caused by those closures—was a sham. Postwatch was dreadful, and the Post Office itself was appallingly ill informed about the post offices and the likely effects of closure. They made no serious attempt to engage in any meaningful dialogue with those who were to be affected. As a consequence, all involved felt entirely frustrated by the process. In my constituency, it came on top of the closure of a Crown post office that has been moved into the basement of a local newsagent. That has compounded the difficulty for those who want to use those vital services.
	I will support the Conservative motion. I will not be able to support the Government amendment. The amendment calls for
	"a viable and sustainable network for the future"
	but means, in effect, further closures that could be avoided at remarkably little additional cost. It could save those post offices, which are undoubtedly vital community services in urban areas as much as they are in rural areas.

Charles Hendry: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who gave the shortest and probably the best speech of the entire debate.
	This has been an important, well attended and articulately argued debate. It is of great interest that not one person stood up to defend the closure programme and how it is proceeding. Some Labour Members stood up and told us that things are going badly wrong in their constituencies but then said, "Let's just keep on doing it." Indeed, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter)—I am glad to see him back in the Chamber—spent the second half of his speech telling us how badly things were going, having spent the first half condemning us for saying that there should be a suspension on those grounds. As the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, this is the last chance. There are no options left for trying to stop this misguided closure programme.
	We all agree on the crucial role of the post office and its vital role in communities up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke about the particularly important role that it plays in so many rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said that the issue was causing as much concern now as any that he can remember. He spoke, he said, as a retailer of 120 years' experience. I had not realised that he was as old as that. I knew that he was wise, but that puts it in perspective.
	It is right that we should use this occasion to pay tribute to sub-postmasters and mistresses up and down the country. They serve their communities with tremendous dedication and work hard for long hours. They serve those communities well and they want it to be recognised that they do not just run businesses. They are part of the social fabric of their communities, too.
	Only two things have been missing in the debate. First, no voices have been raised in support of the closure programme. Secondly, we have not heard those Labour MPs who have been so eloquent in their local newspapers and on their websites but did not come to repeat those words today.
	The motion does not suggest that we do not need change. Of course we need change. We recognise that. The post office network needs to move on to reflect the way that people live their lives. The motion is also not about an absolute solution for the post office network. That is a serious long-term issue, which will take a long time to sort out. The motion recognises that the closure programme is failing, that it is opposed by almost every Member of Parliament in their constituencies and by almost every national newspaper. If it is not suspended, it will result in massive, permanent, unnecessary damage to our communities.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Pendle and for Leicester, South. They have said that they will vote with us tonight. That is not an easy decision, and I recognise that. It is undoubtedly the right decision, however.
	Let me make a couple of other points absolutely clear, too, particularly in response to the comments made by the Secretary of State. We are committed to putting £1.7 billion into the post office network over the next three years. We have said that we will honour the Government's spending commitments when we come into government. That is part of the process. We would expect the amount to be less if more post offices can be kept open, because part of that figure includes the compensation package. We are also committed to spending £150 million a year on the continuing subsidy, although the central point of our approach is that we should allow the post offices to develop new businesses and new income streams, so that the £150 million can be used to keep more post offices open.
	The Secretary of State made many points. If he were really convincing about his closure programme, though, I wonder why it is that half of his Cabinet colleagues are openly campaigning against it. He talked about what happened under the Conservatives, when 3,000 post offices were closed in 18 years. That compares with the 6,000 that have been closed in just over 10 years of this Labour Government—a rate of closure that is three times as high as previously.
	However, the fundamental difference is that the closures under the previous Conservative Government were voluntary, whereas the current ones are enforced. People are having their businesses taken away from them, and they have no choice and no way to stop the process.
	The Secretary of State also said, rather proudly, that there was no subsidy for post offices when the Conservatives were in government, but the figures are clear. In the last few years of our time in office, the Post Office made a profit of between £22 million and £35 million a year. It did not start losing money until 2000, when this Government had had the chance to interfere for a bit. Since then, it has been losing £50 million, £100 million and nearly £200 million a year. The Government do not recognise the difference between the conditions that prevailed when we were in power and those that obtain today.
	The Secretary of State also said that there are no constraints on the businesses that post offices can carry out, but he should come with me and talk to sub-postmasters. They want to offer PayPoint but have been told that they cannot. They want to work with carriers other than Royal Mail—for example, FedEx, UPS and others—but they have been told that they are not allowed to. Moreover, they must face the problem that Royal Mail will go to their biggest customers and persuade them into direct deals that cut post offices out by undercutting the stamp price that those offices are allowed to charge.
	The Secretary of State missed the fundamental point about the constraints being placed on future business, about which so many colleagues spoke in the debate. It is bad enough for people to have their post office taken away, but it is obscene for the Government to put in place measures that will serve to close down the whole shop as well. To tell postmasters and postmistresses that they may no longer operate the national lottery, operate PayPoint terminals or offer the facilities that they have spent years understanding is to do massive damage to the communities that they serve.
	It is one thing for the Post Office to say that people may no longer buy a stamp from a shop, but to say that they will no longer be able to buy their bread and milk there is to go way beyond its powers. In addition, many of the services offered by post offices will simply be moved to the shop next door, if there is one. That means that people will not migrate naturally from the post office that has closed to the one a few miles away; instead, they will simply go to the shop next door.
	Also discussed were the talks about the one-for-one issue, and the implications of that approach. Perhaps the Secretary of State should look at those figures as well. So far, 671 closures have been announced in those areas where the consultation process has been completed. As a result of what has gone on, 26 offices have been reprieved, and 19 replaced by other post offices being added to the closure list. So seven out of nearly 700 post offices have genuinely been reprieved. Earlier today, the Prime Minister said that that proportion was about 10 per cent. of the total, although I think that it is about 1 per cent. However, if he makes it 10 per cent., maybe that explains why the economy is in such a mess.
	Many hon. Members have spoken of their concerns about the consultation process. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said that six weeks might be appropriate for a matter that was not controversial but that it was otherwise too short a period. My hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke about the factual errors that had been made, and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) mentioned the people who wanted to close their post offices but who were not being allowed to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)—it is a great pleasure to see him speaking in this Chamber again—spoke for many when he said that there was a great sense that the decisions had already been made.
	Excellent contributions were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—although I suspect that the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West reeled off the names of his villages was a nightmare for the  Official Report.
	Other hon. Members also contributed to the debate through their comments on their websites and elsewhere. For example, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) says on his site:
	"There are no direct bus routes to either of the alternative branches".
	He states that one of them is
	"on a red route! Your decision concerning Meads Lane is in my opinion driven by short term cost cutting dogma."
	The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) intervened in the debate and told us why she would not vote for our motion, but on her website she says:
	"We really believe that these closures will affect the most vulnerable people in our community, particularly those who are elderly, disabled or those with young children."
	However, she will not vote with us to stop that happening. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, said:
	"We shall oppose this as we believe the local Post Office is an essential part of any community."
	The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy)—a Government Minister—said:
	"I hardly think that six weeks is long enough to have a meaningful dialogue with the community about these changes."
	Perhaps most deliciously of all, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who in other days would have been supporting us, said in the  Grantham Journal:
	"this week, the Post Office broke new ground among public bodies in demonstrating either complete internal confusion or deliberate public two-facedness."
	If anybody would recognise two-facedness, it is he.
	When we put our points about the consultation process to the Minister, he said, "It's Cabinet Office rules; we've got to stick to them," but that same Minister decided to disregard those rules, which said that a consultation process should last 12 weeks, rather than 6 weeks, so one thing applies in the run-up to local elections and another during the consultation process. It is little wonder that the many people in our constituencies who have gone to public meetings on wet, dark wintry nights, who have signed petitions, who have written letters, who have gone on marches, and who have done everything that they can to preserve the facility that they care about, feel let down by the process.
	There has been a lot of debate about the access criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about the fact that the distance as the crow flies does not reflect the true distance. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole talked about bus routes, and how the buses do not go in the right direction, meaning that a journey takes much longer than would have been the case. Again, Labour Members have argued the point on their websites and in their local newspapers. Not all of them have been so assiduous, however; on his website, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said of his local post office closures:
	"Member's of Ed's staff visited the Postmaster at Adwick on Ed's behalf".
	Well, I bet they got the bunting out for that one. How privileged local people must have felt that their Member of Parliament was taking the issue so seriously. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), formerly Minister with responsibility for small business, said it was important to pick
	"the right one and not the wrong ones".
	My goodness, one can see why he was made a Minister, and perhaps why he was moved on.
	The problem with the access criteria is that they are fundamentally flawed. It is simply a matter of somebody at a computer deciding, as a matter of geography, which post offices should close and which stay open. They have failed to take account of major new housing developments and, worse still, they have not paid sufficient attention to hills, public transport links or unsafe roads. It will therefore be vulnerable people, older people and people with disabilities who suffer most. They are the people who depend most on their local post offices, and who will lose out most when the changes are made.
	Let us be in no doubt: this is not the Post Office's policy. This is the Government's closure programme, because they decided how many post offices should close. They decided what the funding package and access criteria should be, and they decided which rules apply to the businesses that many people may continue once their post office has closed down. The Government can, if they wish, tonight instruct the Post Office to stop the programme.
	We want a Post Office fit for the challenges of the 21st century, a Post Office not stuck in the past but able to take full advantage of the business opportunities present today. We welcome change, but we have a vision for the post office network; it should be sustained by new business, freed from the restrictions that tie it down today, and increasingly become a hub for local council and government services. However, that is not what the change programme is delivering; it is dismantling an important, much-loved service. We do not object to change, but we do object to the change that the Government are proposing, the flawed access criteria, the shortened consultation process, the lack of vision for future business and the appalling restrictions on future business activity.
	At the end of the day, what people say on their websites and press releases will not save a single post office. If Labour Members of Parliament genuinely want to save their post offices, they have one chance, and that is to vote with us today.
	This comes down to a question of trust. If we want people to have faith in their politicians, they must believe that politicians will not say one thing in their constituency on behalf of their communities, and vote against those words in the House of Commons. Constituents will not understand how MPs told them that they were on their side, but when they had the chance to vote against closures, they failed to do so. MPs will have failed their constituents, and they will have failed to live up to the standards that people should rightly expect of their Member of Parliament. Worse still, they will have turned their back on the elderly and others who are most in need. That betrayal of the most vulnerable people in their constituency will haunt them for the rest of their career.

Patrick McFadden: We have seen from the debate today the strong feelings that post office closures can arouse not only in the House, but in local communities. I understand that, as do the Government. That is why the Government support the post office network with such significant investment, and why we have done so over many years.
	There is the subsidy of £150 million a year, without which thousands more post offices would be under threat. There is other support in the package of £1.7 billion up till 2011—support to cover losses over and above those that the subsidy covers, support to enable new outreach services to provide post office services in new ways, and other support that adds up to significant backing for the Post Office up to 2011. That was acknowledged by some in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster).
	The reason why we do that, as the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, is that we do not see the Post Office as a purely commercial concern. We appreciate its social and community role. Without the backing that the Government give to the Post Office, which was not there when the Conservatives were in power, a commercial network would consist of only about 4,000 branches. So when the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) says that it is not just a commercial service, we agree. That is why we have put so much public backing behind it.
	Even with the high level of subsidy, because of the decline in custom and the level of losses, some offices are having to close. I understand that that is unpopular, but sometimes government is about taking difficult decisions.

Greg Hands: The Minister visited a post office in my constituency last week which is housed by WH Smith in Kings mall, but is he aware that the other WH Smith housing a post office in my constituency was threatened with closure the very same week that it opened, owing to a planning application to demolish the building? Does he further think it is acceptable that the whole of London W14—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Just one point at a time.

Patrick McFadden: I visited the post office in WH Smith and spoke to customers there. That post office is operating well.
	It is understandable that some people wish that the closures did not have to happen, but we are mindful of the amount of funding that taxpayers can put in to support a service that is facing profound change in terms of technology, how people live their lives and pay their bills, and competition.
	Those issues used to matter to the Opposition, but faced with a difficult decision, what have they chosen to do? They have chosen to try to make it go away. They have chosen to say that the closure programme should stop. Thousands of post offices closed while they were in power. The sub-postmasters never got a penny in compensation. Today the Opposition have chosen to try to make the problem go away.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister tell me how many villages in the Vale of York will be more than 3 miles away by car from the nearest post office?

Patrick McFadden: I shall come to the access criteria later.
	Funding is a critical weakness of the Opposition motion. We have seen three different positions on funding in the debate. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) was not clear at all that the Conservative party was committed to matching our funding. The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said that the party was clear on that, but if the motion goes through tonight the Conservatives will have to not only match our funding, but increase it. There have been three different positions on funding in one debate; that is the critical credibility problem with the motion.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I will not for the moment.
	The divide is about whether we support the Government's investments or whether, like the Conservative party, we are utterly incoherent on financial support for the Post Office. The decision to close any post office is, of course, unpopular; worse, however, is the knowledge that when the Conservative party faces a problem, it simply asks for it to stop with an utterly incoherent financial position.

Anne Snelgrove: I have been listening to the debate today with great interest. Will the Minister tell me how voting for the Conservative motion would save a single sub-post office in this country?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend asks a good question. Voting for the motion will not save post offices because the Conservative party has acknowledged that post offices have to close. All the motion would do is delay the decision, put sub-postmasters under further uncertainty, and then, the Conservatives have said, the closures would have to continue.
	Let us consider some of the challenges that the Post Office is facing. Every day it is open for business, it loses £500,000. It has lost 4 million weekly customers in the past few years. Some of the least used post offices are subsidised at up to £17 per transaction.

James Gray: The Minister says that some post offices cost £17 per transaction. Perhaps he could do what Allan Leighton could not do during a recent conversation with the sub-postmistress of Yatton Keynell in my constituency. When she asked him how many post offices made a profit, he said, "I don't know—I'm just waiting for my bonus when I give up my job at the end of my time." Will the Minister tell us how many post offices make a profit? Why is he closing them too?

Patrick McFadden: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the commercial network is made up of about 4,000 post offices.

Alan Duncan: In the process of deciding which post offices should close, what is the principal criterion—profitability or access?

Patrick McFadden: The thing driving the closures is, of course, the loss of custom and money. That is what is behind the need to rationalise the network.
	Eight out of 10 pensioners now choose to have their benefit paid directly into the bank; among new retirees, the figure is nine out of 10.

William McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I am afraid that I want to make progress.
	People have a choice about how to pay their car tax, and 1 million a month choose to renew it online—half of them outside the normal office hours of 9 to 5. More people are paying bills by direct debit and there is, of course, the issue of competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) made a serious speech about competition and its challenge to the Post Office. Unlike Conservative Members, he realises that that is a big challenge when it comes to winning business such as bill and television licence payment.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I want to make progress. [Hon. Members: "Give way!"] I have given way a few times, and I would like to make progress.
	The Opposition say that they want to make the issue go away. The issue is not just about the profitability of the post offices, but about what the Opposition would do about how benefits are paid. Are they really saying that they will turn back the clock and pay benefits and pensions by girocheque when the vast majority of people choose to pay them directly into the bank? Doing that would add a further £200 million of costs a year. If they are not saying that, why do they not accept that the Post Office faces those major challenges?
	Let me turn to some of the specifics raised in the debate.

Nigel Evans: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I am afraid that I want to make progress.
	Many Members raised the issue of consultation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Brigg and Goole, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and Hastings and Rye. I acknowledge that there has been dissatisfaction and disquiet about the consultation process. Representations have been made that we should extend it from six weeks to 12, but six weeks was the period used during the last period of post office closures and is the period agreed between Postwatch and Post Office Ltd in their code of practice— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is too much noise in the House. We have had a full debate and the Minister is entitled to make a reply that can be heard.

Patrick McFadden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Many hon. Members talked about the consultation, which is about how, not whether, this is to be done. The Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform picked up on that in its most recent report, and it was right to do so. Post Office Ltd must be clearer that that is the question before the people, because that is what is producing some of the frustration in local communities. Hon. Members have expressed confusion about this. Let me quote the letter that was sent to all hon. Members back in July, before the process began. It said that the consultation
	"would not concern the principle of the need for change of the network, nor its broad extent and distribution...rather consultation will be seeking representations on the most effective way in which government policy can best be implemented in the area in question".

Simon Hughes: Given that the Minister will not change his policy on delaying consultation, will he at least instruct the Post Office to ensure that it gives all the information to Members of Parliament so that the individual merits of every post office can be in the public domain and we can win an argument on the basis of the facts?

Patrick McFadden: As I have said, the Post Office needs to be clearer about the consultation and about the question before people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), among others, mentioned the access criteria. Let me be clear. Those criteria represent a minimum, and Government funding is to fund the network to a much higher extent than that minimum would require. In plans so far—

William McCrea: rose—

Patrick McFadden: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way again.
	To give some sense of perspective, let me say that 99 per cent. of people will either see no change in the post office that they use or be within a mile of an alternative post office. If we followed the advice of Conservative Members by abandoning the access criteria and closing only the post offices that are least used, vast areas of rural Britain would be without post office provision at all, and those are precisely the areas that hon. Members say that they are interested in.
	Some local authorities, for example in Essex—not in Swindon, unfortunately, despite the efforts of the local MPs—have expressed interest in taking over post offices scheduled for closure. We have said that the Post Office should sit down and discuss that seriously with those local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the chief executive of Post Office Ltd today saying that that should happen, and if local authorities are interested they should have those discussions. The Post Office will expect to recover all costs, but that is a serious conversation that should take place.
	On commercial freedom, let me quote the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, who said
	"why would the government want to use taxpayers money to give someone compensation for something that they are continuing to do".
	They do not lose all compensation. An adjustment is made—

Andrew Robathan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added , put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	 The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 251.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House recognises the vital social and economic role of post offices, in particular in rural and deprived urban communities; notes the decline in post office customer numbers in recent years and the financial losses of £174 million incurred by the network in 2007; further recognises the effect of changes such as direct debit facilities and increased use of the internet for payment and communication; commends the Government's action to support the post office network with investment of up to £1.7 billion up until 2011, including an annual subsidy of £150 million; further notes that this subsidy did not exist under the last government and that without it thousands more post offices would be under threat; and urges the Government to continue working with Post Office Limited to ensure a viable and sustainable network for the future.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put motions 3 to 5 together
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuantto Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Education and Training) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Fees and Charges

That the draft Department for Transport (Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration Fees) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.

Government Resources and Accounts

That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved. —[Tony Cunningham.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Committees),

Electronic Communications Networks and Services

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15371/07, Commission Communication, Report on the outcome of the Review of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC and Summary of the 2007 Reform Proposals; further notes the Government's support for the European Commission's objectives and most of the Commission's proposals to revise the regulatory framework for electronic communications and services in pursuit of open competition; but acknowledges the Government's intention to continue to analyse both the case for a veto on national remedies and establishing a new EU Market Authority in order to consider whether alternative methods could better achieve results. —[Tony Cunningham.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Clatterbridge Hospital (Wirral)

Ben Chapman: I wish to present a petition signed by 1,470 residents of Wirral who feel that there is an overwhelming need for a minor injuries unit and an out-of-hours service in south Wirral. The north of the borough is covered by a facility in Wallasey and the centre by a unit at Arrowe Park. People in south Wirral do not feel that they receive the same degree of attention as those elsewhere in Wirral in that and other respects.
	The petition reads as follows.
	The Petition of residents of Wirral,
	Declares that, there is a local and pressing need for a Minor Injuries Unit and an Out of Hours service in South Wirral, and that the Clatterbridge Hospital Site is a prime location for such facilities.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister for Health to call upon Wirral Primary Care Trust to commission a Minor Injuries Unit and an Out of Hours service on the Clatterbridge Hospital site.
	[P000144]

Climate Change

Stephen Williams: I wish to present a petition signed by 1,210 of my constituents and other people throughout the city of Bristol. It concerns climate change, and more specifically the Climate Change (Sectoral Targets) Bill, which is nearing the end of its proceedings in another place and will shortly be presented to this House for further consideration. The petitioners specifically ask for an amendment to be tabled by Her Majesty's Government
	to introduce a target for the reduction of Carbon Dioxide emissions by at least 80 per cent. of the 1990 levels by 2050, to include in this target emissions from aviation and shipping, and to require intermediate annual targets for the reduction of emissions.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Humble Petition of residents of Bristol,
	 Sheweth
	 That they bear witness to the threats of climate change, and believe that firm action is needed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House appeals to Her Majesty's Government to bring forward an amendment to the Climate Change (Sectoral Targets) Bill, to introduce a target for the reduction of Carbon Dioxide emissions by at least 80% of the 1990 levels by 2050, to include in this target emissions from aviation and shipping, and to require intermediate annual targets for the reduction of emissions.
	 And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. ]
	[P000154]

Admiral John Byng

Alistair Burt: I have the honour to present a petition with historic overtones.
	Some 250 years ago, Admiral John Byng was court-martialled and executed on the quarter-deck of his ship for a perceived naval failure. It was his execution that gave rise to Voltaire's satirical phrase in "Candide", which has been passed down to us today as "In England they execute the occasional admiral pour encourager les autres".
	Born and buried in the village of Southill in my constituency, Admiral Byng's memory, and the sense of injustice among those who feel that he was convicted when it might have been the Government in the dock for providing him with inadequate ships and men, have led the petitioners—consisting of family and friends and some 600 signatories—to seek redress so that the wrong of his court martial and sentence can be finally righted, and the stigma of his unjust fate may be removed from his family with the sensitivity and understanding that have become more acceptable in modern times than in the past.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the friends of All Saints Southill, the parishioners of Southill, Byng family members and the supporters of Admiral John Byng,
	Declares that the conduct at his trial and the verdict of his trial in December 1756 and January/February 1757, which resulted in his execution on 14th March 1757 was unfair and unjust. Further declares that he was made the scapegoat for the inadequacies of the Government and his Naval Superiors at the time, whom the Petitioners believe to have been responsible for the loss of Menorca to the French.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Ministry for Defence and the Ministry for Justice to review the trial and the verdict of that trial, resulting in Admiral John Byng being declared innocent posthumously; his Honour should be restored for him, his family and supporters.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000153]

Organ Donation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Tony Cunningham.]

Gordon Banks: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am increasingly of the opinion that Adjournment debates are like buses—you wait for one a long time, then two or three come along at once. The House may be aware that I secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last week on the important issue of the banning of looped blind cords. Tonight, I wish to raise another important issue, and although I am certainly not complaining about the opportunity I have been given, some of my staff are.
	To get down to business, tonight's debate is on an important issue. It has been in the headlines recently, but I am concerned we should not allow the sometimes divisive issue of organ donation to slip off the radar. I have been working closely with a local paper in my constituency,  The Alloa Advertiser, since the end of January to try to promote the positive benefits of an opt-out system, and to encourage donors to sign up to the existing system to ensure that those in need of organs are given the best possible chance of life. As I said a few moments ago, there is a national focus on the issue, but as with everything, it is transient. We need to keep focused on this issue, as people's lives depend on it.
	Perhaps I should spend a little time outlining why we have a severe shortage of organs. We are living longer, and conditions that would have killed us some years ago are managed and controlled. That is a good thing, but it creates a twofold pressure. First, some of the conditions with which we live require transplants and, secondly, as we live longer, fewer people are dying, which in itself creates a reduction in the number of organs for transplant. In addition, road deaths are less than half what they were in the 1970s despite, as we all know, a great increase in the numbers of cars and, indeed, a population increase. It is great that our roads and our cars are safer—and we must strive to make them even safer—but the statistics highlight a great pressure on available organs.
	I believe the current system is too restrictive, as it does not meet the increasing demands placed on it. Quite simply, the organ donor rate in the UK is unacceptably low, with most European countries having a much higher rate than us—some of them twice or even three times the UK rate. We have reached a point where there is public demand for change. I believe that there is a desire for change in the House, too, which is demonstrated by early-day motion 967 in my name, which has attracted the signatures of 52 fellow Members. There are more than 7,000 people in the UK on waiting lists for organ donations, and more than 400 people die each year still waiting—more than one person a day. In Clackmannanshire, which forms part of my seat, four people have died in the past five years waiting for transplants. Bodies are buried or cremated complete with organs that could have been used to save lives, not necessarily because the deceased objected to donation, but simply because they never got round to signing up to the organ donor register or informing their relatives of their wishes.

Jim Devine: As my hon. Friend knows, I used to work in the health service, and it was traumatic for relatives to hear us explain the death of someone in a road traffic accident or of someone who suffered a coronary, and then to hear us ask whether we could take organs for the benefit of other individuals. That is unacceptable in this day and age.

Gordon Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What he says is true and important, and I shall come on to explain how a soft opt-out system would make the initial conversation between the organ donation co-ordinators and the bereaved family more palatable. A new soft opt-out system would go a long way towards alleviating the stress my hon. Friend mentions.
	While many of us say we would be prepared to donate our organs, not many of us have done anything about it. Studies have shown that 90 per cent. of the population support organ donation, yet only 25 per cent. are registered as donors. In Clackmannanshire, the figures reveal that 13,497 people are on the organ donation register, but if we equate that to the 90 per cent. statistic there are still about 30,000 potential recruits. People are more likely to need a transplant than they are to become an organ donor. Given that this research shows that the majority of people would be willing to donate, presuming consent rather than presuming objection is more likely to achieve the aim of respecting the wishes of the deceased person.
	I have had an interest in this area for a while, and certainly long before I entered Parliament. Colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have campaigned relentlessly on the issue, particularly Dr. Richard Simpson and Lord Foulkes. I carry an organ donor card, but I have been concerned for a while that not enough has been done to encourage people to sign up and to make people aware of the desperate need for organs in the UK. For example, my wife, who works in the NHS, would be very willing for her organs to be used, but she has not got—and is unlikely ever to go about signing up for—a donor card. I suspect there are many people in that situation.
	The lack of awareness of the demand for organs must also be addressed for the sake of the thousands of people on the waiting list. I have met a couple of people in my constituency who are on the list. Sarah Murray from Sauchie is 23 years old and suffers from cystic fibrosis. She has been waiting 18 months—well above the average waiting time—for a double lung transplant, and she told me about the difficulties that she daily faces. Simple tasks such as housework or walking the distance between two lamp posts are difficult, if not impossible. She has lived with this disease all her life, and it has affected her schooling and means she is unable to work. She has not had the opportunities that most of the rest of us have had. She may have gone on to university. Who knows what potential might have been released? A transplant will release that potential.
	I spoke last week in my other Adjournment debate to which I referred earlier about wasted potential, and here I find myself raising it again. The decisions we make on issues such as organ donation will allow so many of our young people to realise their potential. Sarah has always wanted to be a nurse, but has been held back by her condition. A transplant would give Sarah the opportunity to study nursing and pay back to the very system that saved her.
	I am glad that the Government are making moves to tackle the chronic shortage of organ donors by welcoming the findings of the recent organ donation taskforce report. Let me be clear: I also support the report's findings, but I firmly believe we need to move to an opt-out system as soon as possible. The report raised some important issues, and over the past few weeks I have been questioning the Department on a wide range of matters relating to organ donation. I hope the Minister will be able to address some of them. I know that the Prime Minister has agreed in principle to adopt the report's recommendations, which if implemented could see a 50 per cent. increase in UK organ donors. However, changes may be some months away, so I believe it is important that we lay down some strong foundations now.
	There should also be an increased role for GPs in discussing with patients the option of organ donation. I have been visiting my GP for over 50 years and not once has the issue been discussed. I know that this must be handled carefully, but I firmly believe that we must address the role of GPs.
	Funding of £11 million has been made available for 2008-09, with significant additional funding identified for subsequent years. In response to a written question on 29 February the Minister informed me that discussion with stakeholders has started to agree what further action, such as research, public awareness campaigns, training and work force requirements, would be needed to enable each recommendation to be implemented. I hope that the Minister can tell the House in greater detail how the discussions are progressing.
	We must couple the implementation of an opt-out system with the recruitment of extra transplant co-ordinators to ensure that all suitable organs are harvested. The taskforce report has called for 100 co-ordinators to help relieve the strain on the existing co-ordinators, many of whom work shifts in excess of 24 hours without a break.
	If a change is to take place, we need to ensure that an adequate level of investment and expertise is utilised. Unless we have the people who are properly trained, and transplant co-ordinators who are available 24 hours a day, we will find ourselves in a very difficult position.

Rob Marris: May I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the wonderful work of the late John Cox, his wife Rosemary and their daughter Christine following the death of Peter Cox? They were instrumental in persuading the then Government to set up the national register of donors. One of the reasons insufficient organs are available is that even if the deceased has expressly consented to organ donation, his or her relatives can posthumously block the donation and refuse consent. The relatives' power of veto should be reconsidered in order to increase the supply of organs.

Gordon Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I favour a soft opt-out where the family retains the ability to be consulted, but where we come at it from a position of presumed consent as opposed to a presumed lack of consent. Countries such as Austria operate the system that he mentions. It has a high level of uptake and availability of organ donations, so he makes a strong argument.
	There is a need for investment in the short term, but the sooner the extra money is found, the better, as there will be long-term savings for the national health service and improvements in people's quality of life. I recognise that increased funding for transplants has been allocated by the Government: heart and lung funding has increased by almost £8 million since 2002; liver funding has almost doubled since 1997; and pancreas transplant services' funding has more than doubled since 2004 to more than £8 million. That investment is very welcome.
	Last month, I visited the renal unit at Falkirk and District royal infirmary and found out that it costs the NHS on average £400 per treatment. If people require three treatments per week, as my constituent Anne Duncombe does, we are talking about more than £1,000 a week, possibly for many years. The cost benefit of a kidney transplant is staggering—the NHS is £241,000 better off over a 10-year period for every transplant patient. No one has to be an economist to see the real financial value to the NHS of a transplant, never mind the ability of the recipient to work, pay taxes and improve their quality of life.
	Dialysis is not just a financial burden; it can often mean 18 to 20 hours per week to people if time for treatment, travelling and so on is taken into account. The renal unit at Falkirk and District royal infirmary is treating more and more patients from throughout the Forth valley owing to the ever-increasing demand for organs. The unit has almost doubled in size since it opened in 1999. It now treats 100 dialysis patients, but only one in four of them each year receive the kidney that they need.
	A lot of money could be allocated elsewhere if a successful opt-out system were launched. Each region should have a dedicated team ready to operate when needed to remove organs, and there should also be a national database prioritising organs that are urgently required, particularly for children. Another important point is that we must ensure that any attempts at political separation in the UK do not detract from the need to have a UK-wide solution to the organ donation issue.

James McGovern: Like me, my hon. Friend represents a Scottish constituency. I am sure that he is fully aware that health is devolved to the Scottish Executive. Can he tell us what their view is on his proposals?

Gordon Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The transplant situation in Scotland is governed by the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006. There are noises from the Scottish Executive that they are minded to favour a soft opt-out, but we will have to wait to see whether they deliver. The situation in the rest of the UK is governed by an Act passed in 2004, and my hon. Friend will note the two-year disparity. We cannot allow such a disparity if the situation is changed in the rest of the UK and Scotland is left behind.
	Limiting the availability of organs to one region would have some serious implications. As with so many matters, we are stronger as part of the Union, and in this case a UK-wide system increases the likelihood of an organ becoming available. Who will be the one to tell my constituents that their chance of receiving an organ transplant has been drastically cut, because we can harvest them only from Scotland? I hope that no one ever has to utter such words.
	Therefore I am pleased that the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority has commissioned work to develop and design an electronic system for offering donor organs throughout the United Kingdom. I understand from the Department's reply to one of my written questions that this system will be ready to go live in September this year. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that this is an important step forward.
	The organ donation taskforce took note of the systems being implemented by some of our European neighbours, such as Spain, where a change in the law and the necessary reform in the health service has boosted the number of organs available for transplant. The organ donation rate in Spain is 35 per cent., compared with 13 per cent. here in the UK.
	It is important here to distinguish between the number of people carrying cards and on the register, which is 25 per cent., and the number of organs used in transplant, which is 13 per cent. There could be many explanations for this disparity. We may die in the "wrong way", organs from potential donors may be incompatible with those in need at that time, and many people carrying donor cards may be young people who are encouraged to sign up when they apply for their driving licence. Their organs are unlikely to be available for many years to come. So a 25 per cent. base of card-carrying donors delivers only half that number of organs for transplant.
	Hard-hitting campaigns are being launched here in the UK, particularly the "Live or die? You choose" campaign, which is on our television screens now. I praise the work of the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority, but there is a limit to how effective such campaigns can be when our organ donation system is so fractured.
	Every hon. Member will know that changes in the law can often be slow and cumbersome, but the longer we wait, the more lives we put at risk. I encourage all hon. Members to put this message across in their local media, so that we can raise the profile of this issue. Members could promote their constituency office as a place where people could come along to sign up to become organ donors; launch campaigns in the local press and highlight the plight of those waiting for organs; go out and meet those in their constituency who are waiting for a transplant; and look at the facilities and speak with staff at their local hospital. It is only by putting across the human side that we will encourage more people to come forward as organ donors. We need to raise awareness and encourage the public to sign up to help others in need by giving them the gift of life.
	Some hon. Members will be aware that in my Adjournment debate last week I highlighted the issue of the dangers associated with looped blind cords and the tragic death of a toddler in my constituency, Muireann McLaughlin. Muireann's parents, at a time of tremendous grief, decided to help to give the gift of life to another when two of Muireann's heart valves were donated. That ties in with recommendation 12 made by the organ donation taskforce that there should be some way to recognise the brave decisions of parents in such situations.
	As with any issue, there is always an opposing view. I understand and sympathise with that view, and whether it is held on moral or religious grounds it is equally valid. There should be a database of people who do not want their organs to be used for transplant, giving people the opportunity to opt out. If someone felt strongly enough, I am certain they would ensure their name was on the database. It sounds tough and harsh, but so are the deaths of 400 people per year, many of whom are children.
	It is not a case of nationalising organs, as has been suggested in the past. People waiting for organs get very angry at those who take that view. It is a case of trying to save lives using all means possible. With a soft opt-out, donation would become the default position. The introduction of a soft system of presumed consent would represent a shift in emphasis in favour of donation without major changes to practice. It would respect the wishes of potential donors and the sensitivities of their families.
	To sum up, I hope that I have put a case that outlines the need for a change to our system of organ donation. I urge hon. Members to sign early-day motion 967, which is in my name, and urge the Government to move to an opt-out system with the necessary structural changes in the service as quickly as possible. There are enough organs in the UK to satisfy demand, and it is simply the system that holds us back from transplanting them into those who need them. It is my hope that the Minister will address the issues I have raised, and also propose some time scales for when we can look to take the organ donation taskforce's proposals forward.
	As I mentioned earlier, the longer we wait the more lives we put at risk. As a responsible country, we cannot and should not allow this.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) on securing this evening's debate. I commend the hard work and dedication that he continues to demonstrate in his constituency and as an advocate for the issue.
	I hope that in the time that I have to speak, I can reassure my hon. Friend on the issues that he raised. Transplantation is one of medicine's great success stories. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are absolutely committed to increasing the number of organs available for transplantation so that many more people can benefit from that life-saving procedure and, as he so graphically said, release the potential of the individuals who have that potential thwarted because of the limitations caused by their being unable to secure a transplant.
	The current situation, whereby 8,000 individuals require a transplant but only 3,000 operations a year are carried out because of the lack of available organs, reflects not only the points made by my hon. Friend but those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), who illustrated from his professional experience the added difficulties and strains in the health service. The situation is worse than that. Some 4,000 patients are never put on the list. Practitioners are reluctant to list patients whom they believe are never likely to receive a suitable organ because there is such a limited supply of organs for transplant.
	I, too, want to pay tribute to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris)—the late John Cox and his wife Rosemary—who have done so much to advance the achievement of a sensible situation in the UK.
	The gap highlighted between the number of those who require transplants and the number of available organs led my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), when she was Health Minister, to set up the organ donation taskforce. The taskforce's membership was drawn from a wide range of specialties and interests, including media, diversity issues and the voluntary sector. It undertook a thorough and productive period of research to identify the barriers to organ donation and how they might be overcome. Like my hon. Friends, I carried a card for a long time and I am on the register. So few people appreciate the simplicity of the registration process and how it makes organs available.
	The taskforce looked at evidence from Europe and the US, but especially from Spain. The evidence from Spain was very important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire noted, Spain has the highest rate of organ donation in the world, at around 33 per million people. In contrast, the UK has one of the lowest donation rates in Europe.
	In addition, many aspects of the Spanish model have been successfully imported to other areas, such as northern Italy and certain parts of South America. It is therefore clear that we need to look at the formula that is used in Spain.
	The taskforce has recommended that the UK adopt the sort of broad-based approach to be found in Spain. It said that there needs to be investment in infrastructure and that the UK must ensure it maximises its potential for donation rates. That includes establishing a UK-wide organ donor organisation as part of the NHS blood and transplant service, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire made.
	The taskforce also said that we needed a dedicated and strengthened network of organ retrieval teams to work with hospitals' critical care teams. It added that the number of front-line co-ordinators working with families and the hospitals that donate and receive organs should be doubled to around 100—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. Moreover, it said that all parts of the NHS should embrace organ donation as usual business, not as an unusual event, and that is precisely the point that my hon. Friend made about GPs.
	Other recommendations from the taskforce were that donor activity in all health trusts should be monitored, and that all clinical and nursing staff likely to be involved in treating potential organ donors should receive mandatory training in donation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire rightly spoke about funding, and the House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 16 January that all the recommendations from the taskforce would be accepted. To enable their implementation, extra funding of £11 million has been made available for 2008-09, with more to follow in future years.
	Organ donation is an area of medicine that necessitates a high degree of co-ordination across the UK. For example, an organ donated in Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast may be transplanted into a patient in London, or vice versa. It is therefore essential that a UK-wide approach is maintained, and that is the strong message that we have received from the taskforce. All the Ministers in the four UK health Departments have welcomed the taskforce's recommendations, and are implementing them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire rightly touched on the need to oversee the delivery of the recommendations. I am therefore pleased to announce that Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, has agreed to head the group tasked with taking forward their implementation. We have already held discussions with a number of organisations so that early progress can be made.
	My hon. Friend mentioned matters to do with presumed consent that are outside the taskforce's original remit. Under the current system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West noted, families do not have a legal right of veto over a decision made by a donor when he or she was alive. Any system that we put in place must be aimed at helping people who wish to be donors to have their wish carried out, and that is something that will need to be taken into consideration.
	Clearly, the taskforce's work does not end there. The UK's chief medical officers will need to take the work forward, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he has asked the taskforce to consider the potential impact of introducing an opt-out system for organ donation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he thinks now is the time for a public debate on the matter, and that we should move forward.
	I have sympathy with those who want a change to the opt-out system as a step towards putting into practice the wishes of the many people who we know support the idea of donation in principle. It is important that when we develop that idea we find ways to move towards a system that helps people to donate and helps their wishes to be fulfilled, but also takes into consideration the views of others who may not wish to be covered by presumed consent. That needs to be done delicately, swiftly, and accurately if we are to meet the objectives of my hon. Friends present today.
	I am delighted that all UK Governments have been able to commit to taking forward the recommendations. I am delighted that the taskforce, with its considerable expertise, is turning its attention to an opt-out system of presumed consent. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, I look forward to the day, which I hope will come soon, when we have an agreed procedure that satisfies all, regardless of their views on organ donation, and that ensures that we match the Spanish rates and so help people to live fulfilled lives, rather than lives that are wasted because organs are not available. I commend the work of my hon. Friends to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

European Defence Equipment Market and European Defence Agency

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 14937/07, Report by the Head of the European Defence Agency on its activity in 2007, No. 15413/07, the Council's guidelines for the European Defence Agency's work in 2008, and No. 16682/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication on a Strategy for a Stronger and More Competitive European Defence Industry; and endorses the Government's approach to the development of the European Defence Agency and its view that the analysis and proposed solutions in the Commission's Communication need further refinement before they can be supported.
	 The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 194.

Question accordingly agreed to.